St Peters Feasibility Study 2015

The Church of St Peter

Bournemouth

Appeal

Feasibility Study

Revised July 2015

ST .ANN ’S GATE ARCHITECTS The Close · Sal i sbury · Wi ltshire · SP1 2EB

principals: Michael Drury RIBA GradDiplConsAA AABC

Antony Feltham-King RIBA GradDiplConsAA AABC

partners: Louise Rendell RIBA DipConsHistEnvRICS

Helen Martin BAHons DiplArch MScCons AABC

St.Ann’s Gate Architects Limited Liability Partnership · reg. no: OC344334 · VAT: GB 188 085 427

t : 0 1 7 2 2 5 5 5 2 0 0 e : a d m in @ s ta n n s g a t e . co m f : 0 1 7 2 2 5 5 5 2 0 1 w : w w w. s ta n n s ga te . co m

St Peter’s Bournemouth/Appeal/Revised Feasibility Study

St Ann’s Gate Architects LLP/July 2015 2

St Peter’s, Bournemouth Revised July 2015

Appeal

Feasibility Study

Contents

Phase 1

1.1.0 Introduction

1.2.0 The Organ

1.3.0 Wallpainting Conservation

1.4.0 Fabric Repairs

1.5.0 Lighting and Sound Installations

1.6.0 Heating

1.7.0 Seating

1.8.0 Café

1.9.0 The Resurrection Chapel

Phase 2

2.1.0 North Side Development

Cost Summary

3.1.0 Cost Summary

Appendices

A Statement of Need

Rev Dr Ian Terry

B 1. Restoration of the Organ of St Peter’s Church, Bournemouth, 17 Sept 2012,

Sam Hanson, Director Music

2. Initial Advice on an Organ Restoration, 27 February 2013

Ian Bell, Organ Consultant

3. Updated costs from Harrison & Harrison, 26 February 2015

C The Wallpaintings in the Nave, Detailed Condition Report, February 2013,

Revised June 2015, Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator

D Lighting and Sound Systems Report, February 2013

Revised June 2015, Paul Covell, Lighting Designer

E Heating Study, 25 February 2013

Revised June 2015, Chris Reading, Heating Consultant

F Community Café Outline Business Case, New Way UK Consultants Ltd, June 2014

G Feasibility Study for North Side Development, 2008



1.1.0 Introduction

1.1.1 Background to the Revised Feasibility Study

The church's statement of needs (appendix A) provides the brief for the appeal, to which

this feasibility study responds. This brief developed following initial discussions with the

architect in June 2012 and has developed further since the earlier version of this feasibility

study, issued in March 2013. This reflects an increasing understanding on the part of the

church community concerning the needs and priorities of the church and the wider

community. This revised feasibility study evaluates each element within that brief,

assessing the implications on the church fabric, the likely benefit and the order of cost.

1.1.2 A Two Phase Project

A fundamental change to the brief since March 2013 concerns the role of St Peter’s within

the wider community. At the heart of the town, the church has been developing partner-

ships for the common good over the last two years and as a result the appeal project has

become increasingly mission-driven. The launch of a major appeal is a critical moment and

St Peter’s is now adamant that it should not look back in future and regret not having

embraced a bigger, more imaginative vision. Therefore, although the first priority must be

the conservation of the existing building, the church also aspires to an imaginative second

phase development that will greatly enhance its mission potential. Shown below, this

phase would provide new facilities on the street front to the north, envisaged as a heritage

centre for word and music. The potential for concerts and performance within the church

will also be realized by the provision of meeting rooms and associated facilities. Although

still at an early stage and subject to further discussions with the relevant authorities, this

revised feasibility plan thus indicates the 'bigger picture' as a second phase of the appeal.



1.1.3 History and Development

The church stands at the western end of a large, mainly wooded churchyard. St Peters

Road lies to the north with the town centre immediately beyond and to the west. The

church is listed Grade 1 and was designed by the eminent Victorian architect George

Edmund Street, famous for the Law Courts in London. Built in stages between 1856 and

1879, it retained only the south aisle of the slightly earlier church. When finished the new

building provided a nave and chancel with aisles to either side of both, pairs of eastern and

western transepts and a south porch, the west tower and spire being the last parts to be

completed. A range of vestry buildings by Sir T.G.Jackson came later, standing to the north

of the chancel with crypt space beneath. The Resurrection Chapel was built in the

churchyard in 1925-6 as a war memorial to designs by Sir Ninian Comper.

All the buildings are similarly constructed in Purbeck walling stone between Bath dressings,

the church and vestries having slate roofs.

The church from the south. The Resurrection Chapel is the small flat-roofed building to the south of the

eastern transept. The churchyard extends further to the east.



1.1.4 Appeal Content

Priorities identified within the appeal address a range of issues:

• The need for a complete overhaul has led to the consideration of other proposals, up

to and including a rebuild with significant changes to the instrument and its

specification. An intermediate option has been adopted which incorporates some

augmentation of the instrument in conjunction with the major overhaul. The organ pit

may need attention as standing water has been observed here over the years.

Remedial work might best be undertaken when the instrument is out of commission.

• Other fabric matters arise from the architect’s 2015 quinquennial inspection or before,

the condition of masonry in the clerestories having been a known problem since 2007.

Wallpainting conservation in the nave has been discussed for a similar length of time,

this and the re-lighting of the church both being economically associated with the

scaffold erected for the clerestory repairs.

• Increased comfort levels within the church have been identified if the potential of the

church as a community asset is to be realized. Movable seating will increase the

flexibility of the church for a more varied pattern of use and good heating is of

paramount importance. Future use will include a café at the back of the church and

this should be in operation later this year.

• A viable future for the Resurrection Chapel must be ensured and additional facilities

are being incorporated in conjunction with essential repairs, presently in hand.

• Finally, a second phase of the appeal would deliver a north side extension, envisaged

as a heritage centre for word and music. The potential for concerts and performance

will also be realized by the provision of meeting rooms and associated facilities.

The interior looking east (Photo from Pitkin Church Guide).



1.2.0 The Organ

1.2.1 Background

The Willis organ of 1871 was incorporated in the present Harrison organ in 1913. A major

overhaul was carried out in 1975. The instrument has been regularly maintained since but

now needs further attention as indicated below.

1.2.2 The Proposal

In Sept 2012 the Director of Music identified four alternative proposals, each one more

major in scope than the last (see appendix B1). Recent instructions from the church

indicate a preference for Option 4, namely to rebuild the organ as a four-manual organ,

including a new console and a complete overhaul of the inner workings of the instrument,

including:

• The opening/closing action of the Swell box;

• An assessment of the water problem on the organ chamber floor.

Changes to the specification of the instrument, as follows:

• Making the two-stage Swell Mixture a proper feature of the organ.

• Adding a 4’ flute to the Swell.

• Adding Great chorus reeds, and moving the existing Great Reeds to the Choir.

• Addressing the Great Mixture situation.

• Revoicing the Great Tierce.

• Reinstating the 8’ top octave of the Choir Cor Anglais and assessing its revoicing

potential regarding its audibility in the building (taking historic considerations into

account).

• Revoicing the Choir Orchestral Oboe.

• Reconsidering the specification of the Choir Acuta.

• Adding a Pedal 32’ flue stop.

• Adding a Pedal mezzo-forte trumpet-tone 16’ reed (possibly derived from the Great

Reeds).

• Reassessing the scale of the 32’ Bombardon bottom octave to match more closely

with the 16’ Ophicleide.

1.2.3 Feasibility

The organ consultant has responded to this brief and has discussed the project with

Harrison and Harrison, organ builders. His preliminary advice on the proposed work,

budget cost and programme, dated 27 Feb 2013 appears at appendix B2 and updated costs

from Harrison & Harrison, dated 26 February 2015 appear at appendix B3.

1.2.4 Work Relating to the Organ Pit

The architect’s 2015 Quinquennial Inspection Report, paragraph C94 reads:

The pit below the organ goes down to basement level, adjacent to the blower room

described at C97 below. The lowest levels are prone to dampness as the water table is high.

When inspected with the organ consultant on 23 Jan 2013 there were a few inches of water

in the bottom but there was only a trace of dampness on the concrete floor at the time of

the present inspection. The pit drains naturally but water staining patterns suggest that

levels may rise to about 150mm as a maximum. Salts powdering on the plaster elsewhere

and associated streaking down the wall from the roof appear to be historic. The space is

well ventilated and the Director of Music informed the architect at the time of the

inspection that the organ builder was not unduly worried but further monitoring should



continue and a detailed survey at low level will be necessary to finally assess implications

fully. The situation could then be addressed in conjunction with the proposed overhaul and

augmentation of the organ as access is difficult and any remedial work required in the pit is

best undertaken when the instrument is out of commission.

1.2.5 Costs and Programme Implications for Works to the Organ

Ian Bell, the organ consultant reports in preliminary advice, dated 27 Feb 2013 as follows:

I am very wary of predicting cost given the joint hazards of (a) the unpredictability of organ

builders tenders — which can, and do, frequently vary by as much as 300% for ostensibly

comparable work; and (b) the equally unpredictable effect that the current economic

climate has on some of the costings of some builders, but not others. Furthermore our hope

is to step a little beyond simple like-with-like refurbishment. Accepting that that hope may

be dashed, we should nonetheless have the information to hand before abandoning that

aspect; and budgetary figures based on the least bold option tend to become set in stone,

or at least in people’s expectations. That said, I would be surprised if a thorough

refurbishment undertaken to this standard comes in much below around £500,000 before

VAT, and would suggest pencilling something closer to £650,000. Figures from this firm are

usually inclusive of subsistence and fares for site work, but not freight charges to and from

their workshops in Durham. They are subject to annual inflationary increases in direct

proportion to nationally negotiated wage increases (usually close to RPI) regardless of

whether or not a contract has been signed or an indication of intent offered.

Subsequent cost estimates from Harrison &

Harrison, the favoured organ builders indicate a

net cost at 26 February 2015 of £594,216 for

Option 4. This is less than the consultant’s

estimate of £650,000 but allowance must be

made for consultant’s fees (say 5%) and VAT,

bringing the likely gross figure to about 750,000.

Work within the organ pit may also be necessary.

A budget of £800,000 is suggested.

Timescale: Ian Bell advises that regardless of

undertakings that may be made in good faith,

organ builders will never confirm dates until a

contract has been signed, and even then will

vigorously maintain the principle that ‘time shall

not be of the essence’. Waiting lists from the

moment of contract signing are typically about

two years. Thereafter the work might be

expected to be achieved within perhaps nine or

ten months.

The Comper organ case design



1.2.6 The Organ Console and Case

The remote console is movable and is usually located in the easternmost bay of the south

nave arcade. Its replacement is included in the favoured Option 4. An organ case was

designed by Ninian Comper in 1913. It was never built and current proposals make no

allowance for its provision. It would be a worthy addition to the proposed work and

although it is understood that costs will not be included in the appeal total, the case design

is reproduced above, should a specific benefactor be identified.

1.3.0 Wallpainting Conservation

1.3.1 Summary

Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator offers a summary in his report dated Feb 2013

(see Appendix C) indicating that the wall paintings in the nave are by Clayton & Bell and

those in the choir and sanctuary by Powell and Sons to designs by G F Bodley. They date

collectively from a period between 1873 and 1889. The decorations in the Keble Chapel

were by Heaton, Butler and Bayne from 1905. Peter Martindale’s report describes the wall

paintings and their condition. It also explains what can be done to conserve the paintings

and to improve their visual appearance for the benefit of this and future generations. The

most serious concern at present is on-going deterioration to the wall paintings at the east

end of the Sanctuary, south side, to the vaulting and to the adjoining lancet window. The

wall painting above the chancel arch on the east wall of the nave is interesting in its

technique; historical reference notes that the pigments are bound with gelatine and that

they were applied to damp plaster. All other areas of painting are bound with a drying oil.

1.3.2 Background to Wallpainting Conservation in St Peter’s

Detail showing current condition above chancel arch

The decorations in the Keble Chapel were conserved in 1995. Minor areas on the sanctuary

walls have also been treated previously, possibly at the same time. The Clayton and Bell

decorations in the nave, shown on p.5 were inspected by another conservator in 2008 but

a subsequent grant application was unsuccessful. The opportunity to undertake this work

should be re-considered in conjunction with re-lighting and repairs to the clerestory

windows (see sections 4.01 and 5.02, etc below). Grant applications might be considered.



1.3.3 Recommendations (from Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator – see Appendix C)

1.3.3.1 Structural work to the wall paintings

1.3.3.2 Nave east wall, the chancel arch

Deterioration of the painted decoration is historic so conservation of the structural

elements of the wall painting could be commissioned. This would include the following:

a) Consolidate areas of severely deteriorated plaster (apex of chancel arch as shown on

previous page).

b) Consolidate areas of damaged plaster, fill losses and tone to match surroundings.

c) Fill cracks in the plaster, and tone the repairs to match their surroundings.

1.3.3.3 The Nave, north and south arcades

The small losses in the paint layer at the extreme west end of the arcades should be

filled and retouched to match their surroundings.

1.3.3.4 The Choir

No identified structural work required.

1.3.3.5 The Sanctuary

Deterioration to the painted decoration at the

east end on the south side of the chancel is almost

certainly on-going. This includes the vaulting, wall

and window cill and reveal. Repairs to the external

leadwork in 2012 would appear to have stopped

liquid moisture ingression from the roof but it is

not known whether liquid moisture is able to

penetrate in any other ways into this area. A close

examination of the external building fabric is

recommended. When deterioration mechanisms

have ceased operating areas of paint flaking can

be secured, and areas of paint loss retouched.

Damage to underlying fabric can too be repaired.

The condition of the building fabric around the

north lancet window in the chancel should also be

examined in detail to establish whether there is Damaged decorations in the SE corner.

water ingress here also.

1.3.3.6 Cleaning the wall paintings

All the wall paintings can be cleaned, and a good result can be achieved if cleaning is

taken to the safe upper limit. It may be possible to achieve an acceptable ‘lift’ to the

appearance by employing a less intensive approach, but whether this is cost effective

once scaffold access is taken into account needs to be considered. Of the four areas

considered here the wall paintings on the nave arcades are likely to be the least costly

per unit area to clean, closely followed by the wall painting on the east wall of the nave.

Wall paintings and polychrome wood in the choir and chancel will be more time

consuming to clean because a two stage process is required.

1.3.3.7 Programme consideration

Suggestions concerning the timing of future works are also made in Peter Martindale’s

report. Essentially, the condition of the painted surfaces in the sanctuary must be stable

before conservation work is undertaken but the recommended work in the nave and

elsewhere could be undertaken as soon as access and funding are available.



1. The painted decorations over the chancel arch

2. The south nave arcade.



1.3.4 Costs for Wallpainting Conservation

Peter Martindale suggested costs for wallpainting conservation in Feb 2013 and advised

further in June 2015. His estimates appear below. They do not include VAT. Scaffolding

costs are included elsewhere (see 4.06 for repairs to masonry in the clerestories).

Cleaning in the Sanctuary and choir will involve the use of solvents, as a result air

extraction will be required for the safety of those undertaking the cleaning and

those worshipping and visiting the church during the programme of work. It is

possible that some extraction may be also be needed for work to the nave arcades.

Careful thought will be required regarding access (scaffolding) and protective

measures to avoid accidental damage to the fixtures and furnishings in the church.

Conservation and cleaning East wall nave (chancel arch) £14,527.00

Conservation and cleaning Nave arcades (north and south) £15,904.00

Conservation and cleaning Choir (timber ceiling and walls) £41,725.00

Conservation and cleaning Sanctuary (vaulting and walls) £55,847.00

Conservation and cleaning Stonework associated with clerestory £4,959.00

Conservation and cleaning Cusped versica carvings (N & S walls) £1,498.00

Documentation Final conservation report £2,015.00

Management of project £844.00

Overall figure to allow for (ex VAT) £137,319.00

It would be possible to refine these figures by undertaking some timed cleaning

trials on the wall paintings, in particular those in the Sanctuary and choir where

cleaning comprises a two stage operation. Allow up to £790.00 for cleaning trials

and allied brief documentation, this figure is exclusive of VAT and access.

Peter Martindale’s costs do not include contingencies or professional fees. An

allowance must be made for health and safety under CDM regulations but architect’s

fees would only be charged on contract administration, provided wallpainting

conservation was undertaken in conjunction with repairs to re-lighting, glazing and

stonemasonry in the nave clerestories. VAT may be recoverable via the Listed Places of

Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if it is available when the work is carried out. To

include provisional allowances of £790 for cleaning trials, 10% contingencies, 5% for

professional fees and 20% VAT would result in a Gross Budget Cost of £191,419.06,

say £191,500.



1.4.0 Fabric Repairs and Conservation

A quinquennial inspection was carried out in April 2015. The report prioritises remedial

work that should be addressed, the most important ones being summarized in the

paragraphs that follow. The tabulated summary of the report itself appears at 1.4.5 below,

indicating other issues that should be included in the repair programme before 2015.

1.4.1 Clerestory Repairs

A substantial section of hard cementitious repair mortar fell from the fourth bay of the

south nave clerestory in November 2007, landing among the pews below. Fortunately they

were not occupied. An inspection from a cherry picker revealed similar failed repairs that

were potentially dangerous. Loose material was removed by a mason in conjunction with

the inspection, for safety. The hard mortar repairs had failed due to incompatibility

between the hard cementitious mortar and the softer stone dressings behind. Substantial

loose sections of hard mortar were prised away elsewhere in the south clerestory but

further work was recommended as a priority to ensure the safety of those below.

Loose masonry removed in 2007. The largest piece Loose masonry about to fall, removed using the

rests on the bucket rim and was about 150mm long. cherry picker in 2007.

Estimates were obtained for repairs to the south clerestory in 2008 and these are yet to be

carried out. If scaffolding is to be erected for the conservation of the wallpaintings in the

nave, it would be economic to use it for repairs to the clerestory also, the programme

being extended to include the north side too, as necessary. The 2008 estimates were

updated by the contractor in 2013 and again by the architect in 2015 to allow for inflation.

Total costs for the work internally have been extrapolated to include the north side which

is in better condition but ought to be dealt with when scaffold is available for wallpainting

conservation. Figures appear at 1.4.6 below. Stonework on the south clerestory can be

inspected externally when scaffold is erected for the replacement of plastic rainwater

goods (see 1.3.2 below) and a provisional sum has been included for remedial stonework

outside. As there will be no external scaffold on the north side, masonry repairs will be

limited accordingly.



1.4.2 Replace Upvc Rainwater Goods

The original rainwater goods were replaced in plastic in 1967. Short-lived materials, they

are unsympathetic to this fine church. Those on the north side were replaced with powder

coated, cast aluminium in 2008 when scaffold was in place for stone cleaning. The

rainwater goods on the south side of the chancel are prone to blockages and all those on

the south side should be replaced to match the north, as should those elsewhere.

Plastic rainwater goods on the south side. North side, rainwater goods replaced in black, powder

coated aluminium in 2008.

1.4.3 The Tower and Spire

The tower and spire have been inspected and

maintained by stone conservators with specialist

rope acccess skills in recent years, following a major

repair campaign in 1982. Among current concerns

are the Bath stone dressings to the windows in the

lantern at the top of the turret stair to the tower

which are failing in the acute marine environment.

Repairs were recommended in the 2015 QI report as

follows: The window dressings, mullions, transoms

and tracery of the lantern stage … are in poor order.

The mullions in the easternmost light have lost

surface and the tracery trees to the south-east have

eroded and are powdering back rapidly. The leads to

the lights are thin and the glass rattles in places. The

ferramenta is corroding and breaking the stone

jambs, significant damage having been caused since

2005. There is localised disruption and exfoliation to

the stonework elsewhere within this area and rain Decaying masonry internally.

streaking on the inner face of the newel stair below.

The pintle, carrying the door to the parapet gutter has

corroded, fracturing the stone jamb.



Decayed stonework in the lantern at the head of the tower stair. Stone damaged by corroding saddle bar.

Scaffold costs to access the stair top would make external stonework replacement hard to

justify economically. The rope access conservators who have worked on the tower and

spire in recent years and have given a budget estimate for mortar repairs to the stone

dressings to the lantern lighting the top of the stair externally and internally. Although such

repairs are less durable than stone replacement, it might be economical to proceed

accordingly, leaving more permanent repairs until scaffold is necessary at this level for

other more wide-ranging work. The budget price from the rope access conservators (see

1.4.6 below) includes for lowering the 21 small leaded lights to the ground safely but not

for re-leading which is included in the budget price from the specialist glazier in 1.4.4

below. Reinstallation of the leaded lights can again be done by rope access and is included

in their budget, as are internal repairs to the lantern which are relatively straightforward.

1.4.4 Glazing

A report by a specialist glazier in

2013 suggested that the glazing to

the south nave clerestory should

receive attention when scaffold is

available. Masonry repairs are

required externally in the clerestory

also. If the leaded lights are 130

years old it might be foolish not to

re-lead them when scaffolding is

available externally for the

replacement rainwater goods.

Although the glazing on the north

side is of similar age and internal

scaffold will be available for wall Dormer window lighting the vestry corridor.

painting will not be available conservation, scaffold externally so as this is a more sheltered

side, no allowance has been made for re-leading. The 21 small lights in the lantern stage at

the top of the tower stair turret are included in the budget prices from a specialist glazier

who has visited the church to inspect the glazing as best he can from the ground. Glazing to

the dormer window lighting the vestry corridor must be re-leaded.



1.4.5 Other Quinquennial Repairs

The 2015 quinquennial inspection report lists other remedial work that should be

addressed before 2015 and suggests other items that might be worthy of consideration.

Some are already covered under the headings above but the remaining issues should also

be resolved in conjunction with the appeal. The biggest single consideration might be the

redecoration of the church internally, for which there are no current estimates. It is

suggested that an allowance must be made for this.

Although the roof over the parish office was replaced in slate in 2012 following lead theft,

the polyester felt used to form replacement parapet gutters is not a durable material. It

will fail within the life of the new slate coverings used elsewhere and will have to be

replaced in due course. In the meantime the roof covering and the face of the dormer

window lighting the vestry corridor must be replaced in lead or an alternative durable

material in conjunction with glazing work to the leaded lights and maintenance work to the

iron casement. See summary below and the full QI report for more details.



D SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2015 QI REPORT The cost of items NOT covered elsewhere in this feasibility study is estimated in the right hand column.

Description Para Cost £

1. FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

Remove bedding material on Sacristy roof C19 DIY

Maintain rainwater goods C27,33 250

Investigate damp in corner of basement lounge C99. 500

Clear vegetation, blocked gutters & gullies C16,33,34,38,42,67,81,99 250

Inspect and make good roofing C11,25,28,34-6,38-40,43-4,46-7 55,127. 750

Clear bird muck from spire, secure against bird entry C82 500

Undertake further inspections elsewhere 58,64,70-1,75,79,83,94,103,107, 112 3,750

Undertake asbestos audit, assess health & safety1 A9, C27,47,98,124 1,250

Clear vent in song room ceiling C90

2. REQUIRES ATTENTION WITHIN THE QUINQUENNIUM

Replace upvc guttering 13,16,18,23-4,27,30,44, 47 see elsewhere

Masonry cleaning, conservation and repair2 22,57,60-3,66-9,75,80,81,84-

86,103,105,107,110,121-2

11,000

Repair/replace leadwork3 C44, 52, 54 1,650

Glazing 52,79,81-4,88,90,93,95,103. see elsewhere

Electrical work arising from inspection4 See A5 & C117. C87 see elsewhere

Wall painting conservation C88,103,104,107 see elsewhere

Plastered surfaces C99,105,106,111 5,500

Make good floor, grille channels, etc C96, 105, 108, 112 2,750

Secure Gate C81 150

Maintain external doors and ironwork C62, 65, 79 1,650

Works to the organ and organ pit C94,116 see elsewhere

Repairs to south clerestory C107 see elsewhere

Timber repair and treatment C109 2,750

Repair churchyard walls C126 - C128 2,750

3. REQUIRES ATTENTION WITHIN TEN YEARS

Undertake more re-slating if necessary C11 Not included

Replace boilers, perhaps earlier C100, 119 16,500

4. TO BE KEPT UNDER OBSERVATION No cost

implications Short lived roofing materials C19,51,54

Roof condition generally C11

Nave roof, tower abutment C27,36

Porch guttering C33

South aisle: top abutment C28

Water penetration through SE transept C64, 65, 104

Water level in organ pit C94

Dampness in basement lounge, boiler room, etc C99,100,101,119,

Trip hazards C105, 108, etc

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Maintain clock C89 550

Redecoration C102, 105, 106, 112, 111, 113 55,000

Improve lighting C118 see elsewhere

Churchyard5 C123, 124, 129 0

Upgrade music room lavatory & cleaners room C91 3,000

1 Includes allowance for tower inspection by rope access conservators and a spire inspection also, inside and out. 2 Includes £5,500 allowance for stone repairs externally to south nave clerestory; scaffold provided for other works. 3 Includes for lead (or similar durable material) cladding to vestry dormer roof and window face. 4 Electrical test and report unseen. 5 Assumed to be local authority’s responsibility.



1.4.6 Fabric Repair Costs

Costs in the tabulation above are very approximate, based on the architect’s experiences

elsewhere, all as of July 2015. Inflationary indices should be allowed to accommodate the

likely time lapse prior to work commencing. Costs include 10% contingency and an

allowance for professional fees (totaling 13%) to cover architect and principal designer

under CDM 2015 regulations. No other consultancy fees are allowed, ie QS so additional

allowances must be made should further consultancy appointments be deemed

necessary. VAT will be applicable at 20% on the total and is included in the final total at

1.4.6.6 below but not under the itemised cost headings. VAT may be recoverable.

1.4.6.1 Clerestory Repairs

Updated costs were obtained in 2013 from the contractor who priced the

south clerestory in 2008. These have been increased by 10% to allow for

the increased costs currently being experienced in the building industry

and a provisional sum has been allowed for stone repairs externally on

the south side. Costs have been extrapolated to include the north side

internally but not externally. Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs: £85,000

1.4.6.2 Replace Upvc Rainwater Goods

Updated costs were obtained from the contractor who undertook the

replacement of uPVC rainwater goods on the north side in 2008. These

have been increased by 10% to allow for the increased costs currently

being experienced in the building industry. Additional costs have been

allowed on a pro-rata basis for rainwater goods to the eastern arm of

the church and the vestry building. Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs: £37,500

1.4.6.3 Tower Turret Windows

Budget costs for rope access conservation work were provided in 2013

by specialists who have worked on the spire and tower previously.

Gross cost, uplifted to include inflation, etc as described above: £22,000

n.b. glazing costs are included in 1.4.6.4 below.

1.4.6.4 Glazing

Budget costs were obtained from a specialist glazier in 2013 to include

re-leading the clerestories, the lantern at the top of the tower stair and

the dormer over the vestry passage. An additional allowance of £10,000

has been made for further glazing work, the architect being concerned

that other leaded-light glazing may be of considerable age.

Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs as described in 4.06 above: £44,000

1.4.6.5 Other Quinquennial Repairs

Approximate costs have been estimated against recommendations

in the 2015 quinquennial report, as indicated in the summary on the

previous page. Gross budget cost, uplifted as described above: £110,500

1.4.6.6 Total Fabric Repair Costs: £299,000 say £300,000

Gross budget cost to include 20% VAT, potentially recoverable

under the LPWG scheme if still available when work is undertaken: £360,000



1.5.0 Lighting and Sound Installations

1.5.1 New lighting and sound systems

Scaffold for clerestory window repairs and wallpainting conservation would also be

available for the installation of new lighting and sound schemes, etc. Paul Covell has

revised his 2013 proposals to take into account improvements in LED light fittings and

increased costs over the last two years. His report appears at appendix D and extracts

appear below to summarise his conclusions.

1.5.2 Lighting Proposals (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)

One of the most economic ways to light a church is to use adjustable spotlights fitted

with LV (low voltage) TH (tungsten halogen) lamps with built in reflectors. Whilst these

are less efficient and have a shorter average life than discharge lamps such as metal

halide, they provide instant illumination, are dimmable, and have a much lower capital

cost. Older versions of these were rated at 100W with a life expectancy of 2,000 hours

and an initial light output of 2,200 lumens. However, with almost the same light output,

the most powerful “ECO” versions now available are rated at 60/65W and have an

average lamp life of around 4,000 hours.

Although they take a few minutes to reach their full output, and cannot be dimmed,

metal halide lamps must also be considered in some areas, especially as current

technology means they now blend well with the LVTH lamps mentioned above.

Potentially suitable power ratings are 35W and 70W. With initial light outputs of 3,300

lumens and 6,600 lumens respectively, and a life expectancy of 9,000 hours, they are

clearly more efficient than LVTH and therefore appropriate for use where there is

necessarily a long distance between the luminaire and the area it is lighting.

A further light source to be considered is the LED, this at last being sufficiently powerful

to compete with conventional light sources. LEDs are extremely efficient and have a

life expectancy of up to 50,000 hours, making maintenance negligible. Whilst their

capital cost is higher than that for conventional LV TH lighting, their lower wattage and

longer life means the payback period is much shorter than it used to be.

The proposals for St Peter’s use all three of the above light sources. Shorter throw

distances use LED lights, longer throw distances use metal halide, and those where

exceptional colour rendering is required, use LVTH lights.

1.5.3 Lighting in the Nave (Extract from Paul Covell’s report. Illustrations and full proposals for

other areas appear in his report at Appendix D)

There is already a precedent for the use of chandeliers in the nave, as the photo on the

following page illustrates. For the main ‘task’ lighting in the nave, I consider it would be

appropriate to reintroduce some form of chandelier as this would lower the light source

and overcome the current glare which obscures the wall frescos. Whilst the design of

these would be undertaken in collaboration with the Architect, I suggest the main

downlighting light source would use dimmable self-contained LEDs, with further small

spots to gently up-light the frescos on either side. As with the original chandeliers, the

new ones would be mounted on ‘gallows’ brackets to bring the unit out over the pews.

Despite the frescos, the nave can feel rather gloomy due to the height of the timber

roof. To overcome this, I suggest that a compact adjustable LED floodlight is mounted

on the wall end of each chandelier gallows bracket. The example shown at the end of



this section is white, but would be finished to blend with the chandeliers and brackets.

To illuminate the east end of the nave I suggest that vertical 3-circuit lighting tracks are

mounted in the window reveals above the gallows brackets on arch 1 (east end, north

and south), and the adjacent arch 2. The easternmost tracks would each be fitted with

an adjustable metal halide spotlight and two adjustable LVTH spotlights to illuminate

the area in front of the chancel steps as well as the first part of the chancel.

Additionally, two further LVTH spotlights would be mounted towards the top of each

track to illuminate the chancel arch fresco of the crucifixion. The tracks above arch 2

would be similar but would not include any spots on the fresco.

Each group of track mounted spots would be controlled on a separate circuit, as would

the easternmost chandeliers and roof uplights so these could be used independently

during concerts.

Postcard showing earlier chandeliers in the nave

1.5.4 Lighting in Other Areas

To avoid duplication the remainder of the lighting proposals should be read from Paul

Covell’s full report at Appendix D.

1.5.5 Church Sound Systems (Extract from Paul Covell’s report D)

There are two basic types of church sound system. The first is to reinforce the spoken

word so that the congregation can hear clearly. From an audio point of view this type of

system should be as discreet as possible so that the reinforcement is almost

imperceptible, and is really only noticed when it is switched off. It should not sound like

a public address on a railway station! The system also needs to take account of the

acoustics of the building, especially when these are as ‘live’ as they often are in a

church, otherwise the spoken word may become unintelligible. The frequency

response of a sound reinforcement system, in particular the loudspeakers, need only

cover the range of the human voice. Simplicity of control is important for this type of

system. Indeed, many are installed on a ‘plug and play’ basis, although we are firmly of

the opinion that easy access to alter the volume of microphones is important, as

readers and intercessors can vary from the timid to the drill sergeant!

The second type of church sound system is able to cater for the above but is also

required to reproduce recorded, and sometimes, live music. This type of system,



especially when used to amplify live music, is necessarily more complex, and requires

loudspeakers which can reproduce a far greater frequency range. Whilst a simple

control system is still required for day to day use, a more sophisticated mixer and a

greater number of audio inputs will be required for music, especially live music.

Both the above types of sound system need to be supplemented by a facility to aid the

hard of hearing. This is most commonly an ‘induction loop’ which enables those with

hearing aids to tune into the system. Higher quality infra-red and radio broadcast

systems are also available but these are far more expensive than a loop system, and

require each listener to wear a special receiver. Infra-red systems also require each

listener to have a clear line of sight to the ‘radiator’ which broadcasts the signal. Infrared

and wireless systems are more commonly found in theatres and lecture/conference

halls than in churches.

1.5.6 Existing Sound System in St Peter’s (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)

As with the lighting, much of the existing sound system in St Peter’s is relatively old,

although there have been more recent additions such as some wireless microphones.

Whilst only really suitable for speech, the loudspeakers, some of which seem to have

been added after the initial system was installed, are quite intrusive. Control of the

system is from the sound ‘rack’ (a wall mounted timber box beneath the mains

distribution board in the north transept), yet there is no loudspeaker in this area so

anyone adjusting the volume of microphones, for instance, is unable to monitor the

result. There is an induction loop for the hard of hearing, and we suggest this and its

amplifier may be re-used. Similarly, whilst additional cabling will be required for some

microphones and for data control, some of the existing microphone points, for instance

in the pulpit and on the lectern, may also be re-used.

1.5.7 Brief (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)

At a meeting in the church on 4 February 2013, the following sound system issues, some of

which are noted above, were discussed:

- The existing system is inflexible and is designed primarily for speech reinforcement. It

does not reproduce music well.

- The current sound mixer forms part of the amplifier and is located in the north

transept from where it is not possible to judge the output volume or balance.

- There are currently no facilities for recording or replay of CDs or iPods.

- Whilst it is not necessary to relay the choir via the sound reinforcement system, a

request was made for a pair of high quality microphones to allow recordings to be

made.

My response to the above was as follows:

- Install new loudspeakers, generally in the same locations as the existing units, but

selected to ensure a much wider frequency response for high quality reproduction of

music as well as speech.

- Any new sound system should include the facility to ‘zone’ the loudspeakers, so that

those in the crossing, nave, chancel, and Keble Chapel can be used independently if

required. This will, for instance, allow midweek services in the Keble Chapel to be

relayed only to that zone, and those in the crossing to be switched on or off as

required.

- The system should include inputs for fixed and wireless microphones, CD/iPod player,

and temporary ‘band’ microphones and guitars. The latter would be terminated in a



compact wall or floor mounted box with a multipin connector, allowing a larger ‘stage

box’ (with many inputs and outputs) on a lead to be connected when required.

- The system would also include inputs to connect audio from laptops and DVD players,

should these be used on a temporary basis.

- Control of the system would be via a DSP (digital sound processor). This would be

programmed with a series of ‘presets’ to organise the routing of signals as well as

having facilities to ‘equalise’ (comprehensive tone control) the sound, and to set a

delay time on some loudspeakers (such as those at the back of the church), if

necessary.

- Two sound mixers should be included. One would be a compact digital unit for use

during most services and might have up to 8 simple faders to control fixed and wireless

microphones and the CD machine. It could be plugged into any one of a series of data

points, allowing it to be operated from different positions as appropriate. The second

mixer would be a much larger unit for use with bands and other events. This would

have at least 24 inputs plus a number of outputs. If an analogue unit were selected it

would require expensive multicore cables and therefore have only one or two

positions from where it could be operated. If a more complex digital mixer were

selected it could be connected to the same data points as the smaller mixer, although

some specialist training would be required to operate this.

1.5.8 Sound System Proposals (Extract from Paul Covell’s report, see Appendix D)

Taking the above requirements into account, I suggest a system based on the following:

Basic System

- 2 new pulpit/lectern microphones complete with shockmounts.

- 2 new recording quality choir microphones complete with mounting brackets to enable

installation towards the top of the wrought iron screens (to the west of the mid choir

column on each side).

- 4 new UHF wireless microphone kits – 3 with lavalier mics and 1 handheld.

- 1 mic floorstand with boom.

- Channel 38 wireless mic license (currently £75 pa).

- 2 active dipole antenna wireless antenna for above, complete with a wireless mic

antenna distributor.

- Rack mounted iPod dock with wireless controller.

- Professional solid state/CD recorder/player (also provides playback of USB recordings).

- 8-channel Audio DSP (digital sound processor) with 8-channel input expander. This unit

also allows zoning of the loudspeakers so that those in the Coffee area, Nave, Chancel

and Keble Chapel can be used independently or in different combinations.

- Portable 8-channel control panel for above (connects to the system via any one of

several proposed data sockets).

- 4 low impedance amplifiers (each with 2 channels).

- 13 full range column loudspeakers complete with mounting brackets.

- 1 demountable weatherproof column loudspeaker for use outside west front if

required.

- 1 pair audio/Cat5 adapters (allows the audio output of a laptop to connect to the

system via any one of several proposed data sockets).

- 1 unbalanced/balanced converter for use with above. Live Music Mixer – Option 1

(Analogue)

- Analogue Mixer with 24 input channels, mixer connection loom cable, stagebox with

captive multicore, 4 multiway connections points, and monitor headphones. The above



combination connects to the system via multicore cabling (2 stagebox and 2 mixer

points allowed for). Live Music Mixer

– Option 2 (Digital)

- Digital mixer with 24 input/12 output stage box, complete with rugged Cat5E

connection leads and monitor headphones. The above combination connects to the

system via any one of several proposed data sockets, and is therefore very flexible.

1.5.9 Costs Relating to Sound and Lighting Proposals (Extracts from Paul Covell’s report)

1.5.9.1 Lighting

Capital costs for the proposed lighting scheme, including luminaires and accessories, the

wireless control system, and suitable allowances for emergency lighting, cabling and

installation are likely to be about £80,000. The actual figure will depend partly on the final

design of the proposed chandeliers which are a bespoke item, and on the emergency

lighting.

1.5.9.2 Sound

The cost of the basic sound system, including a timber clad equipment rack with patch

bays to route the audio and data signals, all cabling, and installation, is likely to be about

£24,000. Including the necessary additional wiring, the analogue mixer option would add

about £3,100 to this figure. The digital mixer option, which does not require any

additional wiring, would now only add about £3,000, costs having come down since 2013.

1.5.9.3 Access

As other high level works are likely to take place either side of the lighting and sound

system installation, the above figures do not include any allowance for access

equipment.

1.5.10 Gross Budget Costs

Paul Covell’s figures do not include contingencies or professional fees. VAT is not

included either. As an approved alteration to a listed church, VAT on a new lighting

scheme may be recoverable via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if

still available when work is undertaken. Including 10% for builders work in

connection and a provisional allowances of a further 10% for contingencies, 15% for

professional fees and 20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £183,845

say £185,000.



1.6.0 Heating and Environmental Control

1.6.1 Background

A report by Chris Reading was commissioned in conjunction with the initial feasibility study

in 2013. He revised his proposals in 2015, his revised report appearing at appendix E.

The report assesses the suitability of the existing heating system, its efficiency, operating

costs and sustainability. It evaluates actual performance against perceived comfort levels

and suggests possible improvements. These proposals were made following discussions

with the organ consultant and the wallpainting conservator as the organ and the

decorative surfaces may suffer if their needs are not considered in conjunction with

proposed changes in environmental conditions.

1.6.2 Design Considerations (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)

The church building is a heavyweight but poorly insulated building. It has a high mass that

can store energy but will not react quickly to the introduction of heat. This stored energy

can be manifest as either warm or cold radiating surfaces. In a church building with large

expanses of cold wall and window surfaces, it is necessary to include a radiant component

of heat before comfort conditions can be satisfied, and consequently convective heating

systems are seldom satisfactory. They can cause large temperature stratification within

high spaces. Therefore, a new system should provide an environment that meets “dry

resultant temperature or operational temperature” criteria rather than air temperature.

Further, for energy efficiency it is also beneficial if high places in the building are as close

in temperature to those at low level as possible. The hotter the roof becomes, the greater

the heat transfer to outside.

1.6.3 Internal Environment (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)

Within a church such as St Peters internal conditions need to be considered for the well-

being of the church contents, in particular the wall paintings and the organ. A stable

temperature helps protect the organ timber and stops it expanding and contracting leading

to cracking. The relative humidity levels allow the organ to remain corrosion free and

protect stops, leathers etc. The Institute of British Organ Building advises that conditions

should ideally be within an environmental band as follows:

Dry bulb Temperature, unoccupied, not to exceed 10 deg C

Dry bulb temperature, occupied for short periods, <20 deg C

Relative humidity, between 55% and 75% and ideally maintained above 50% RH.

To protect the wallpaintings, wall surfaces should be kept in a stable state, such that salts

within the stonework or render do not move in and out of solution, which is when most

damage occurs. Practically this means either keeping the atmosphere above about 80% RH

or below 70% RH. Clearly it is not desirable to maintain a humid environment as a high RH

would not suit other requirements within the building. This suggests an ideal might be to

keep the internal environment at a maximum of 10 deg C during unoccupied periods and

less than 20 deg C during occupied periods while maintaining humidity levels between 55%

and 70% RH.

In order to manage the heat up within a large building using an intermittent heating regime

most engineers will opt for a reasonably high internal background temperature of around

12 deg C. However, there is also the need to avoid rapid changes when raising temperature

from this background level as this might stress the timbers and organ unacceptably.

Conversely, a slow warm up may conflict with the needs of those who use the building.



Given the reasonably tight environmental constraints that a new heating system needs to

address, control of relative humidity during unoccupied hours, coupled with an over-riding

maximum temperature set point is the best strategy. For short periods, such as those for

services, concerts and other events the temperature can be allowed to gently rise to a

more comfortable level. This is best provided with a relatively high radiant heating

component to help assist with perceived comfort and to limit temperature stratification.

1.6.4 Options (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)

Given the theoretical analysis, there are four main options for heating the building. All have

their own problems and some will not meet all the criteria given above. The options are:

i. New “wet” radiator system

ii. New wet underfloor heating system

iii. New convective system using either pressurised warm air system or other

convective systems, such as gas convector heaters or fan convectors.

iv. New electric radiant system

The pros and cons are broadly as follows:

i. Wet Radiator System:

Pros:

- Good for human thermal comfort, providing radiant heat component is kept high

- Good for the maintenance of the building fabric

- Tailored response time, if correctly designed and installed

- Cheaper running costs than for an electric system

- Virtually noiseless

- By careful design, existing plant room and ducts can be used through the church

- Long life expectancy of overall system

Cons:

- Capital cost of installation is higher than warm air or electric

- Response time is slower than warm air (a positive point in most historic buildings)

- Radiators such as the Dunphy “Minster” type should be avoided, (these are convective

steel panel radiators and not suited to this building)

- Pipe routes and placement of radiators means the system must be designed to meet

the aesthetic requirements of the architect and other agencies, such as the DAC.

- The use of fixed under pew radiators limits the flexibility of the space.

- In a wide church like St Peter’s it is difficult to maintain comfort conditions in the

centre of the space from radiators at the perimeter of the aisles alone.

ii. Underfloor heating system

Pros:

- Best for thermal comfort of congregation

- Excellent for the maintenance of the building fabric

- Minimises temperature stratification

- Cheaper running costs

- Noiseless

- Invisible

- Virtually vandal proof



- Longevity of system

- Has the added ability to make use of reclaimed low grade heat either from heat pumps

or other means, should this become practical.

Cons:

- Capital cost of installation is high.

- Disruption to church during installation, which may not be possible owing to sensitivity

of the fabric.

- Response time is slower than for radiator system. The system would have to be kept

on at a low level temperature in order to provide a reasonable response time.

- Need to be careful that the design does not drive additional ground moisture transfer.

- Low grade heat from underfloor heating will not be sufficient to heat the church

without additional radiators.

Underfloor heating has the following additional benefits:

1. This form of heating keeps temperature stratification to a minimum as it operates on a

large surface area at low temperature. The maximum floor surface temperature being

in the order of 27 degrees C, which is governed by human comfort conditions.

2. Given the above, it offers a gentle heat input into the building with a slower response

than most other types of heating, thus avoiding large temperature and relative

humidity swings within the building. This is particularly important where there is likely

to be a high moisture content in the stonework.

3. It offers the best opportunity for human comfort, allowing the feet to be warmer than

the head, provides large radiating surface and is more likely to be able to maintain the

dry resultant temperature at minimum air temperature.

4. It is possible to use low grade (temperature) heated water, particularly when the

building is unoccupied giving environmental and efficiency benefits, as heat pumps are

ideally suited to partner an underfloor heating system, particularly in mid-season.

5. It offers gentle control for conservation heating of the space. If required, perimeter

heating would take the form of radiant panels or radiators sensitively and carefully

integrated into the building. The same heating plant would be able to operate both

underfloor and perimeter systems.

1.6.5 Other Alternatives

New convective system using either pressurised warm air system or other convective

systems, such as gas convector heaters or fan convectors are discussed in the report at

Appendix E. New electric radiant systems are also considered. Neither is advocated.

1.6.6 Green Technologies

Green technologies should be considered and are covered in the appended report.

Biomass boilers and heat pumps are the best options but both have high capital costs.

1.6.7 Recommendations (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)

The report recommends a new low pressure hot water heating system, designed for the

church to match the layout of the fabric and seating and giving a high radiative output. At

today's date we recommend that gas remains the fuel of choice for this building. If the cost

and/or the impact on the church fabric is unacceptable, the next best solution would be to

use a radiator based system in the aisles, augmented by additional heat emitters below the

existing floor grilles to supplement.



1.6.8 Architectural Considerations

If pews are to be movable or removed altogether then an underfloor heating system with

perimeter radiators would give the best overall result. The installation of an underfloor

heating system involves the disruption of existing floor surfaces and sub-floor construction.

It would inevitably result in the loss of some of the existing flooring materials and although

it might conceivably be possible to salvage a proportion, this obviates underfloor heating in

the choir and sanctuary. It would probably also necessitate a new floor slab in the nave if

existing floor levels are to be retained. If the cost and/or the impact on the church fabric is

unacceptable, the next best solution would be to use a radiator based system in the aisles,

augmented by additional heat emitters below the existing floor grilles to supplement.

1.6.9 Environmental Monitoring

Environmental monitoring is recommended over the forthcoming twelve month period to

inform detail design considerations.

1.6.9 Costs for New Heating Installation (Adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)

Budget costs for the proposed system would be £140,000, excluding contingencies,

builders work, professional fees and VAT. Were an underfloor heating system to be

adopted, builders work costs would be high, pushing contract costs up towards £300,000

or beyond.


Chris Reading’s figures include contingencies but not professional fees or VAT. As an

approved alteration to a listed church, VAT on a new underfloor heating scheme may

be recoverable via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if still available

when the work is carried out. Including provisional allowances of 17% for professional

fees (to accommodate architects/principal designers and M&E engineers fees) and

20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £421,200:

say £425,000



1.7.0 Seating

1.7.1 Existing Bench Seating

The existing benches are uncomfortable and inflexible in use, being heavy to move. In fact

they are never moved because every other pew is fixed by its connections to the heating

system. A more flexible seating system would allow a greater range of activities within the

church, allowing it to respond more readily to changing needs. Nonetheless the existing

seating may have formed part of the original church design by G.E.Street and as such may

prove worthy of retention on the grounds of their provenance. This must be ascertained.

Existing benches, some with under-pew heating.

1.7.2 Alternative Types of Seating

Movable seating might be provided, either as chairs or by using new benches. In either

case, a good design, allowing maximum flexibility and ease of use is recommended. Current

market leaders include the Howe 40/4 stacking chair and the Luke Hughes church benches.

There are others, several of them being worthy of consideration but the proposed re-

seating arrangements that follow are based on these two designs.

1.7.3 Stacking Benches

Benches by Luke Hughes & Co are relatively light, stackable and movable on purpose-made trollies.



Stacking benches by Luke Hughes & Co have been used in many churches and cathedrals.

The illustration below shows an installation in Boxgrove Priory, West Sussex in 2009 by

Michael Drury Architects. The church was cold and damp and the pews and their rotten

pew islands were replaced with oak benches on a level stone pavement with underfloor

heating throughout the body of the church.

1.7.4 Stacking Chairs

The Howe 40/4 stacking chair system was designed in the 1960s. Stacking chairs must be

durable as well as comfortable and these have been tried and tested in many churches and

cathedrals since.

The chair is ergonomically designed and can be stacked in linked units or singly on purpose

made trollies. The design is named for its ability to stack 40 chairs high in a height of 4 feet.



An installation using the Howe 40/4 stacking chair system in Salisbury Cathedral by St Ann’s Gate Architects.

Proposed Lay-out

It is suggested that benches be

used in the central blocks of

seating at St Peter’s,

augmented by stacking chairs in

the aisles. This arrangement

might be suitable if seating

within the main body of the

church were to be moved less

frequently than that in the

aisles but the use of benches

does not preclude alternative

arrangements as this seating

lay-out by St Ann’s Gate

Architects for an aisled church

in Odiham, Hampshire indicates.

The central blocks of seating in the nave at St Peter’s are 2.65m wide and could be replaced

by single Luke Hughes benches 2.5m wide, each seating six people. Replacing the existing

19 benches on each side of the central aisle would seat 228 people. Alternative arrange-

ments might also be possible, using shorter benches to increase flexibility although seating

numbers might be reduced to 190. Howe 40/4 chairs in the aisles could accommodate a

similar number to the central blocks if maximum seating capacity was required, giving a

total seating capacity in excess of 400 but current liturgical arrangements in the aisles

would reduce the total, as would the café proposals shown in section 1.8.0 below.



1.7.5 Costs

Based on current costs, the benches might cost in the region of £50,000, depending on

precise numbers and bench lengths. The chairs might cost in the region of £35,000.

The associated equipment consisting of frontals, hymn book/hassock shelves, added

arms on certain seats for those with limited mobility, dollies and storage racks might

add a further £20,000. Professional fees would be minimal and as an approved

alteration to a listed church, the church might consider negotiations concerning VAT

recovery via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if still available when

the work is carried out. An allowance of 20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of

£126,000:

say £130,000

1.8.0 Community Café

1.8.1 Summary

The PCC wishes to re-open a café in the western bays of the church, as an initial phase of

longer term plans to maximise the potential of the church In Bournemouth’s busy town

centre. The café will sell a range of coffee, cakes, sandwiches and light meals that can be

served without the need for permanent alterations to the church or for back-of-house

catering facilities. The café was initially discussed as a key enabler in the overall larger

redevelopment project planned for the church building. The church had tried to launch this

café with various levels of support and contributors to the idea over recent years but had

not been able to get it moving. The business plan has since been thoroughly re-thought, as

both an initial capital cost and also in terms of the ongoing management and running costs.

The previous café, presently closed, looking south



1.8.2 Location and Proposed Facilities

An outline design by St

Ann’s Gate Architects in

Feb 2014 explored the

potential for a community

café at the west end of the

church. A sketch plan,

shown above, indicated a

possible arrangement.

Existing café facilities, now

closed, still occupy the

south-west corner of the

church, in the southern bay

of the western transept.

The new operation might

replace the existing kitchen- The Existing Kitchenette

ette, again housed in a purpose made unit, perhaps still beneath a drop down lid. A recent

review of this proposal suggests that the proposal remains workable as long as hot food is

limited, it being difficult to accommodate extraction facilities within the main body of the

church. The current water and drainage arrangements would probably be sufficient if they

were in good working order but new electrical services would need to be provided.



1.8.3 Impact

This proposal has been formulated to ensure that there will be no permanent impact upon

the church fabric. Existing fixtures will remain in place and fittings will be re-used where

possible. Three bench pews would be moved from each side of the central aisle at the back

of the nave. These bench pews are the same dimension as those originally located in the

north aisle, are loose fixed and could be easily returned to their original location in the

future if re-seating proposals described elsewhere in this report fail to materialise. These

three pews can be moved without alterations to the heating system as it is not until the

fourth pair that under-pew heating is presently provided.

The rear three benches on

either side of the central

aisle could be relocated to

the north aisle, seen beyond.

The previous cafe

arrangements are

utilitarian and new

furnishing would be of a

higher standard,

providing a level of

comfort and a sense of

welcome. It might be

similar to that seen in

the illustration overleaf

which shows the café at

the nearby Russell-

Coates art gallery. The

visual impact upon the

interior of St Peter’s

should be an

improvement and a

successful community

café would bring a

sense of vitality to the

church during the

week.

Typical bucket seats, sofa and table seating



1.8.4 Costs and Business Plan (The following summary is adapted from the outline business case

by New Way UK Consultants Ltd for a Community Café at St Peter’s, dated June 2015. It

appears at Appendix F.)

‘St Peter’s church requires this new cafe facility to address both the building development

vision and in attracting more general public to interact with the church so supporting that

community development. It should benefit from some subsidisation of cost generated by

the facility in the longer term.

The space has been reviewed and some investigations made on electrical supplies and the

like and it appears that the café can be done in that location and the big issue is more a

question of funding.

There are a number of anticipated benefits from this project which revolve around it being

a facility that will aid in getting the Heritage Lottery Fun for the large development project

for the church and with a city centre location, with a good design and attractiveness to

users, providing a range of good priced items that will work well for the church and the

community it seeks to serve, but that will compete well with the large number of coffee

shops in that area.

It is recognised that there may be some potential dis-benefits to church members but that

if these are carefully managed and addressed that most of these could be avoided or

minimised.

Timescales for the project are 2 months for design and set up and 2-3 months for

construction and Fitout. Then major design and construction costs will be incurred

immediately as the scheme progresses.

There are a number of risks relating to the project which are a mixture of external and

internal ones, the external ones are being addressed through the process to minimise their

effect or discount them where possible and the internal ones are being managed through

good communication of the project.

The investment appraisals show good levels of return of 10 to 20% profit of between £10k

to £38k if a 40-50% occupancy level is achieved. The principle sources of income are

expected to be the Diocesan Loan and operating income from the cafe.

Costs currently anticipated are £75k for construction and Fitout including fees and

associated costs on top’:

£75,000



1.9.0 The Resurrection Chapel

1.9.1 Future Use

The Resurrection Chapel was re-roofed in 2012 and further work is presently in hand. Its

end use is under consideration to ensure a viable economic future for this important listed

building, designed by Sir Ninian Comper as a War Memorial Chapel in 1925.

1.9.2 External Works

Although the main roof was renewed in 2012, the vestry roof to the east was not. A new

kitchen will be provided in the old vestry space and this forms part of a contract presently

in hand. It includes the extension of the vestry block southwards to provide a mobility

accessible w.c.

1.9.3 Internal Works

The interior was cluttered,

the decorations in a poor

state and the plaster

damaged by damp

penetration. The chapel

needed heating, re-wiring

and re-lighting and the old

carpet tiles removed.

Mobility access issues

needed to be addressed. All

this work is presently in

hand, due for completion

later this summer.


The contract sum is £108,510. Including allowances of 13% for professional fees and

20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £147,140 say £150,000



Phase 2

2.1.0 North Side Development (The following summary is adapted from the feasibility study by

Michael Drury Architects, dated May 2008. The feasibility study appears at Appendix G.)

2.1.1 Options Analysis and Feasibility Study

Design proposals for a north side development were formulated in 2008 and responded to

an earlier options analysis. Of the seven options identified, three adjoined the church.

Two potential sites were considered worthy of further exploration – the north side site

(number 1 on the location plan below) and that to the east of the church (number 5), both

of which had the opportunity for direct connection with the church but without the same

degree of adverse impact on the church presented by the site to the south (number 4).

Sketch schemes were prepared for the two potential sites and from these the client group

selected the site to the north of the church for further consideration. This north side sketch

scheme was worked up as the basis of the feasibility study which appears at appendix G.

Location plan showing the seven sites identified in the Options Analysis



2.1.2 The North Side Site

The site is located in the angle between the vestry range and the north nave aisle.

North side site highlighted on OSMap (above) and on aerial photograph (below)

The Church from the West (Photo taken from Microsoft VIRTUAL EARTH)



2.1.3 Site description

The site is bordered to the north by St Peter’s Road, one of the principal roads serving the

town centre. The north aisle and the range of vestries (with crypt below) border the south

and east sides of the site respectively. The ground level of the site is approximately 3

metres above pavement level (as is the church itself) but slopes, with the level at the west

end of the church being only about 2 metres above the road. At the east end, below the

vestries, the level of the crypt coincides with street level. The retaining wall to St Peter’s

Road is of natural stone with localized planting to the top edge. A pedestrian access

through the churchyard runs past the vestry range and on past the north side of the

church, through the site in question. A flight of steps through the retaining wall connects to

the road level below.

The site is currently a tarmac car park, used by the church. Access from the west is

restricted around the foot of the tower.



2.1.4 Optimising the potential of the site and its levels

Excavation would allow new accommodation at crypt level, accessible from St Peter’s

Road. A two storey design might provide meeting space at road level, connected to the

existing crypt, the upper storey being minimised to reduce the impact of the new building

on the church. A presence at street level would offer an opportunity for the church to

further its ministry with a ‘shop front’ - an opportunity not available to many churches.

The vestry range, north-east of the church has an existing crypt providing a small meeting

room, presently lit by two light wells. Restricted access means that the room is under-

used. There is a small existing kitchen and lavatories at this level which might serve a new

facility, were the crypt to be extended to the street line as part of the new proposals.

Section through the proposed development, looking east.

2.1.5 The visual context

The streetscape surrounding the site

provides a dense urban setting. To

the north-east is a tall six storey

building, shown here, the ground

floor of which is presently a night-

club/bar. Facing the site on the

other side of the road are rest-

aurants and shops with upper floors

set back above to three or four

storeys.



2.1.6 Visual impact of a new building on the church

Unobstructed views of the church are presently available from St. Peter’s Road. The stone

retaining wall follows the street line, broken only by an opening for the steps up into the

churchyard from pavement level. The walling stone is darkened by pollution deposits and

grimy but nonetheless, were a building to replace it, the most careful design would be

essential to avoid significant visual impact on the church.

The church from the north side of St. Peter’s Road

From the north-east showing a two level scheme. The spire, tower & western transept gable still dominate.



A building on two levels would conceal the aisle from the north but the dominant

features of the church remain uncompromised. The upper level of the new building stops

against the west transept gable and touches the north aisle at eaves level with a glazed

link that slopes down and away from the existing aisle roof. From St. Peter’s road the

church above remains visible, the western transept gable maintaining its dominance on

the north elevation, with the tower and spire rising above.

As seen in the section shown earlier, the upper level of the building will not sit directly

over that below. The lower level sits away from the church to ensure its structural

stability. At the east end it connects to the existing crypt and makes use of the existing

facilities. Natural light into this lower level is crucial. Above, the upper level sits further

back from the road to maintain views of the church from the road and to provide the

opportunity for natural light to the lower rooms from above

View from the north-west on St. Peter’s Road



2.1.7 Connection to the church fabric

The new structure would touch lightly against the existing building and although the

north elevation of the aisle will become internal, it would be lit from above through a

glazed roof section, shown in the illustration below, allowing light to wash down this wall

to the aisle windows.

The proposed new café in the western crossing will provide a vibrant sense of community

life within the church and might be retained, served and augmented by the new facilities

to the north. A new entrance to the church might be made at the west end of the north

aisle through the end bay (seen to the left of the aisle windows in the picture on the right

below). A new door here would give direct access into the nave from the new building

and would align with the south porch door opposite (seen in conjunction with the old café

in the picture on the left below). The war memorial would have to be re-positioned,

hopefully in a more prominent location.



At the east end of the new building, connections would be made at the lower level via the

existing window in the west end of the crypt meeting room and at the upper level via the

existing north transept door.

The crypt could be opened up into the lower level accommodation, perhaps providing

kitchen space and lavatories for a much larger room, entered from the street and with

additional light from above. A staircase to the crypt might remain within the vestry range

as a secondary access and fire escape route although the existing stairs may require

replacement to make them compliant.

At the upper level of the new building, the transept door would become internal, the east

end of the new building being contrived to address the levels of the stepped wall head to

the vestry and the existing window on the north aisle. External access might still be

provided from the new building at this point, allowing the existing vestry office windows

to remain unobstructed.

Public access from the eastern churchyard to the steps to St Peter’s Road could be

relocated within the scheme although the route past the church at the upper level, and

around the foot of the tower, would no longer be available.



2.1.8 Consultation

The Rector and Parochial Church Council of St. Peter’s Church, and their architects invited

advice from the DAC, the local planning authority and the statutory consultees on the

scheme illustrated in the feasibility study. The concept was well received but the impact

of the two story proposal on the Grade 1 listed church caused concern among some of

the consultees. Although there have been on-going discussions since, a revised scheme

has yet to be agreed.

2.1.9 Costs

The scheme illustrated in the feasibility study was costed by Peter Winter, QS in May

2008 at £1,222,680. This included an allowance for contingencies and professional fees.

Although the recession followed, inflation has been significant in the seven years since

and an equivalent cost of £1,525,143 might be appropriate, say £1,525,000



Cost Summary

3.1.0 Phase 1: Cost Summary £

3.1.1 Organ 800,000

3.1.2 Wallpainting Conservation 191,500

3.1.3 Fabric Repair and Conservation 360,000

3.1.4 Lighting and Sound installations 185,000

3.1.5 Heating 425,000

3.1.6 Seating 130,000

3.1.7 Community Café 75,000

3.1.8 Resurrection Chapel 150,000

All costs are approximate. They include contingencies, professional

fees and VAT but builders work in conjunction with the electrical

and sound installations is not included and although it cannot be

estimated at this stage, an allowance is advisable. Work to the

electrical infrastructure is not included either. A 10% contingency is

suggested to cover such items and other unforeseen costs.

3.1.9 Contingencies 231,650

3.1.10 Total Phase 1 Budget Costs 2,548,150

[VAT on approved alteration to a listed church may be recoverable via

the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if it still operates

when the work is carried out. If VAT is recoverable, the total gross

budget cost reduces by about 20% to £2,123,458]

3.2.0 Phase 2: Cost Summary £

3.2.1 North Side Development (see section 2.1.0 below) 1,525,000

3.2.2 Total Phase 2 Budget Costs 1,525,000

3.3.0 Total Costs for both phases 4,073,150

St Peters Feasibility Study 2015

Documents

Transcript of St Peters Feasibility Study 2015