This page has been left blank - res.cloudinary.com · PPIA - Case Study The Remit and Scope County...

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 1

PPIA - Case Study

PPIA CASE STUDY

Nicholas Paley09005269

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 2

PPIA - Case Study

This page has been left blank

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 3

PPIA - Case Study

Contents

the 2015 Masterplan14 Critique of the

Methodology14 Critique of the Outcome

15 OutlineofandCritiqueofKey Advice Provided and Whether Other Specialisms wereRequired15 Planning

16 Commentary on the Costings,StatutoryAspects,Possible Procurement Route16 Is Self-Build the Best

Option16 Costings17 Statutory Considerations

17 Commentary on OrganisationalAspects17 Organisational Structure17 Reflection on my

Personal Role in the Project

18 Bibliography19 Appendix19 Risk Assesments

CONTENTS

5 Elm Tree Farm Hall Overview5 Introduction5 Project Summary6 Abbreviations6 Key Dates

7 The Remit and Scope of the Exercise7 How far Can We Take

This?

8 BackgroundoftheClientandStakeHoldersandcritiqueofcommunication8 Elm Tree Farm as a

Working Precedent

9 KeyIssuesIdentifiedwiththe Client9 Considering the End User9 Elm Tree Farm is Owned

by the NHS9 Respectful of Nearby

Properties

10 The Brief Arrived at and the Group Response and Approach10 The Brief11 Inclusive Design

Approach11 Wish List Exercise12 The Design Toolbox12 Community Engagement13 Key Moment: Loss of

Funding

13 CritiqueoftheContext,Process,andtheProposal13 Critique of the Design

Process Within Educational Brackets

14 Lack of Integration with

007

009

010

012

014

017

016

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 4

PPIA - Case Study

B1_Representational Hegemony

A critical Reflection on the Elm Tree Farm Hall Project by Nicholas Paley

09005269

ELM TREE FARM CASE STUDY

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 5

PPIA - Case Study

ETF Hall Overview

ELM TREE FARM HALL OVERVIEW

Proj

ect S

umm

ary Project Title:

Location:Client:End User:

Brief:

Gross Internal Floor Area:

Budget:

EmployersAgent:PrincipleDesigners:

DesignTeam:

Procurement Route:

Elm Tree Farm HallPark Rd, Stapleton, Bristol, BS16 1AA.Elm Tree Farm in partnership with Brandon TrustVisitors on annual holiday camps as well as permanent employees year round.To provide a covered structure to house the annual holiday clubs run by Elm Tree Farm for children with learning disabilities.49 sqm (double the useable floor space of the original holiday club: two gazebos at roughly 25sqm)Initial projected budget of £150,000. (External Budget Estimate of £225,000.)UWE Architecture DepartmentUWE Elm Tree Farm Design Team in partnership with Hands on BristolJoe CoppKaty LodgeNicholas PaleyRosa PremierEllen SinclairFeasibility Study

This project ran from 03/10/16 to 28/12/16 when a feasibility study was undertaken to design the Elm Tree Farm Hall.This document provides a personal critique of the project, reviewing the successes and failures of our professional conduct as well as the overall outcome of the project. In doing this, it will help us to implement better professional conduct in the future. Rather than address every detail that the project went into, the document highlights key points to provide interesting reflections and therefore it should be read in conjunction with the ETF feasibility study.

Introduction Over Page:Stage 6 of the proposal,

own graphic

Left: Proposed Elm Tree Farm Hall logo produced by joe Copp

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 6

PPIA - Case Study

ETF Hall Overview

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

t 2Bo

nfire

Nig

ht

05/11

04/11

08/11

15/11 21

/11

Client

Meetin

g

Keily a

nd G

aby

Final

Peer R

eview

Client

Meetin

g

Keily a

nd G

aby

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 7

Wee

k 8

Stage 3a - Developed Design

Stage - 3b DD Production

Stage 4 Future Vision

Where we’re at...

Group Moral

Volu

ntee

r Day

Clie

nt M

eetin

gKe

ily a

nd J

ames

Where we’re at...

03/10

07/10

11/10

17/10

18/10

20/10

21/10

19/10

28/10

Initia

l Clie

nt Mee

ting w

ith M

atthe

w

Studio (S

ally)

Client

Meetin

g

James

and Su

e

Porto Fi

eld Tr

ipInteri

m Review

Presen

tation

Wee

k 1

Wee

k 2

Wee

k 3

Wee

k 4

Stage 0 - Strategic Definition

Stage 1 - Brief Development

Stage 2 - Concept Design

Com

mun

ityEn

gage

men

t 1

Where we’re at...

Abbreviations

Key

Dat

es

The following abbreviations have been used in order to protect the document word count.

ETF - Elm Tree FarmCABE - Centre for Architecture and the Built EnvironmentUWE - The University of the West of England Architecture DepartmentCDM - Construction Design and Management

03/10/2016 - Initial Client Meeting07/10/2016 - End of Stage 0 - Strategic Definition11/10/2016 - Volunteer Day / Client Meeting with James Kightly17/10/2016 - End of Stage 1 - Brief Development18/20/2016 - Client Meeting with Keily Elvin and James Kightly19/10/2016 - Community Engagement Event28/10/2016 - End of Stage 2 - Concept Design05/11/2016 - End of Stage 3 & Community Engagement Event; Bonfire Night28/11/2016 – Final Presentation of the Proposal at Elm Tree Farm

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 7

PPIA - Case Study

The Remit and Scope

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

t 2Bo

nfire

Nig

ht

05/11

04/11

08/11

15/11 21

/11

Client

Meetin

g

Keily a

nd G

aby

Final

Peer R

eview

Client

Meetin

g

Keily a

nd G

aby

Wee

k 5

Wee

k 6

Wee

k 7

Wee

k 8

Stage 3a - Developed Design

Stage - 3b DD Production

Stage 4 Future Vision

Where we’re at...

How

Far

Can

We

Take

Thi

s? /

ReflectiononLiability Our team was tasked with designing a covered

structure to house the annual children’s holiday clubs run by ETF.As a live project undertaken by unqualified architects as part of a course, there was a question in my mind from the outset as to ‘how far are we supposed to take this?’. As a group, we were unsure as to whether or not it was our responsibility to produce scaled drawings for the proposal and subsequently whether or not we were to assist in the planning process.My concern lay in the potential liability issues that we might cause by virtue of designing a proposal. As our group did not have professional indemnity insurance, it was clear that we would need to exclude liability as the ‘principal designer’, forfeiting our obligations under CDM; which we included within our brief.Now that the project is moving forward again, we will need to ensure there is a qualified architect prepared to join the project and notify their PI insurance as necessary.

In practice, I would investigate CDM Guidance and undertake the following tasks to fully address the obligations of myself and colleagues:• CDM Guidance specifically the HSE

website:http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/resources/guidance.htm

• Recommend that the principal contractor appointed is aware of their obligation to ensure a safe environment, mainly in the pre-construction phase, and afterwards if self-build is 100%, liaising any risks that they might have.

• Review existing relevant information relating to works on site. For instance health and safety rules for users and employees at Elm Tree Farm (This is even more relevant for a self-build project).

• Advise the client of the process and requirements of CDM.

• Carry out relevant risk assessments. See appendix.

THE REMIT AND SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 8

PPIA - Case Study

Client and Stake HoldersEl

m T

ree

Farm

as a

WorkingPrecedent The client for this project is ‘Elm Tree Farm’

acting under the parent organization of Brandon Trust who took over management in 2001. Our primary point of contact was with ‘Farm Manager’ Keily Elvin, however we would often meet with her and ‘Volunteer & Supported Worker Manager’ Gaby Olivia.We often commented within the team that the ‘Actor Network Diagram’ was the real start of the project as it gave us insight into the diverse nature of ETF’s operations. This diversity was something that we wanted to keep in sight whilst we developed the proposal. We felt that the flexibility that the farm exhibits in elements such as the ‘splinters’ workshop, plant nursery and the farm shop could be embodied into the proposal and ultimately became a keystone of our developed brief.Within our first introductory meeting with Keily, it was clear that she was accustomed to dealing with students from UWE architecture department, and personally I did not feel that there was any sense of hesitation that might be apparent in a new appointment. Starting off the client/designer relationship in this way was hugely beneficial for us as it allowed us to develop our understanding of the project quicker as well as assisted us on our community engagement exercises.

Above: Diagram showing the key stakeholders in the Elm Tree Farm Hall project. Individual members,

organisations and avenues for futher research.

The diagram also aided as an organisational tool for mapping

the interactions between various stakeholders.

Illustration By Joe Copp

This continuity, was an extension of the work done by the previous year’s UWE design team, our client was well aware of our educational obligations within the work and assisted us accordingly regardless as to whether the work was necessary to advance the design.

BACKGROUND OF THE CLIENT AND STAKE HOLDERS AND CRITIQUE OF COMMUNICATION

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 9

PPIA - Case Study

Key Issues

Top: The team with staff.

Middle: NHS Logo, Taken from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/

Bottom: Neighbouring Property Boundaries.

KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED WITH THE CLIENT

Elm

Tre

e Fa

rm is

O

wne

d by

the

NH

S Site ownership became an issue that sat in the background for the extent of the process. As our feasibility study was directed primarily to secure funding, we did not dwell on the implications of this, however now that the project looks like it will continue, it will need to be addressed. Though planning permission can be applied for, and be assessed without ownership rights, it would be necessary for the client to secure said ownership prior to commencing works.

RespectfulofNearby

Properties It was important to the farm to maintain

a good relationship with nearby residents and wanted the design to cater for them by controlling the building position and providing vegetation screens to prevent unecessary noise polution. We sought to cater for this not only due to ETF’s desires, but also as there is a legal obligation to respect neighbouring property rights.

Consideringthe

End

Use

r The design needed to cater for children and adults who are disabled and/or have special educational needs. Considerations such as the site being sloped and therefore difficult for wheelchair access as well as ETF not having a suitable WC for disabled persons, was of primary concern to the client. Furthermore, the farm lacks a quiet space whereby staff and visitors with autism can escape to.

69C: Concept Design

Parti Diagram

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 10

PPIA - Case Study

The BriefTh

e Br

ief Our brief was produced at by combining

exercises, research and public engagement in a two-way process between ourselves and the client. Rather than re-summarize the brief, I will instead pick out significant parts of the brief for discussion that proved to be most relevant to the project. The brief and vision of the project can be found on pages 24 – 29 in the document.We all wanted to be as thorough as possible when writing the ETF Hall brief. Though this led to quite an extensive document, the outcome gave us a really clear indication as to what our task actually was for the project. The diagram above became a key organisational tool for us to orientate the project much like the stakeholder diagram did before it.Looking back, I feel that the brief was mostly beneficial to our understanding of the clients vast desires for the project. In using exercises like the project wish-list, we were able to reduce the scope of the project to align better with the initial budget of £150,000. That said, the extent to which we broadened the client’s brief to include elements that we felt were necessary might have overcomplicated the process and inevitably pushed up the build cost estimate.

THE BRIEF ARRIVED AT AND THE GROUP RESPONSE AND APPROACH

Above: ‘the role of the farm hall diagram’ helped us to orientate and simplify the requirements that we set out extensivly in our brief. Illustration by Joe Copp

Above: the Visual Brief, Illustration by Rosa Premier

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 11

PPIA - Case Study

The Brief

Wis

h Li

st E

xerc

ise Within our initial client meeting, it was clear

that the desired outcomes vastly outweighed the £150,000 potential budget.In order to manage expecations, we opted to implement an Ellen Sinclair’s idea of ‘the wish list exercise’, where essentially we would assist the client to map out all of their ideal requirements and then order these in terms of their priority. I On reflection, we can deduce that the simple brief given to us by the client could be extrapolated into a ‘Statement of Requirements’ (‘SOR’), or ‘Statement of Requirements’ within the ‘creating excellent buildings’ document by CABE. As the client’s desires for the building were extensive and arguably beyond the implied budget of £150,000, this exercise proved to be really successful in managing everyone’s expectations. Additionally, when later on it became necessary to stage the proposal to align with incremental funding, we had a clearly defined order in place to design around.

InclusiveDesignApproach Arguably the most important consideration

we took into account when defining the brief was that the design needed to respond with a heightened sensitivity to accessibility and the well-being of all farm users. To address this, we researched the following legislation and regulatory bodies:• Office for Standards in Education,

Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)• Building Education Funding Agency,

particularly ‘Bulletin 102 – Designing for Disabled Children and Children with Special Educational Needs’.

• Accessibility Standards; approved document M (2004) of the Building Regulations.

On reflection, I feel we responded well to inclusivity from a potential funding perspective. However the design itself did not execute all the considerations outlined in the brief, for example, the use of tactile cues, storage of mobility equipment and joinery heights.In my opinion, the cause of these omissions may have come from limitations of scope of the exercise as there is little point detailing a full building prior to securing funding or applying for planning permission.

Above: The Wishlist Exercise, Illustration by Joe Copp

Above: The Farm Community, Own Photo

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 12

PPIA - Case Study

The BriefTheDesignToolbox Our approach to the design is best summarized

within the ‘Design Tool Kit’; a summary of the key design principles is laid out in the brief under ‘Design Tool Kit’. We used this approach to split the design of the whole project into segments to divide research and address separately, with a mind to tie them together into a design at the end. The toolbox was also a means of addressing our scope within the project. Rather than produce a one-off design at a set cost, we instead wanted to create a ‘set-of-rules’ that the client could scale according to any additional funding to the £150,000 they were initially vying for.

Com

mun

ity

Engagement Public consultation was an aspect that our team

were enthusiastic to explore. As a keystone of our project was inclusivity, it was informative to gain an insight into what members of society were interested in achieving at ETF. We used these to help us expand what the end use of the building could be. Suggestions such as a cookery school, seminars and talks suggested that ETF could rent out the space commercially when it was not in use.

33B: Preparation and Brief

On the front of the sandwich board we have written a selection of questions in bold colours and lettering, aimed to catch the attention of people walking by. On the back a map shows most areas of Bristol. Major supermarkets are pinpointed, as is Elm Tree Farm and St Nicholas’s Market. We used this to gain information about where participants lived and where they usually shopped for food.

Farmer’s Market Consultation

These images show the group asking members of the public questions from the questionnaire, and having wider conversations about topics such as community self-build projects, children’s holiday clubs and community activities.













Above: Elm Tree Farm Group at the Corn Street Market, photos taken by the group, avoiding faces.

Below: The Design Toolbox, Illustration by Joe Copp

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 13

PPIA - Case Study

Critique of the Process

KeyMoment:LossofFunding The loss of the initial funding bid had quite a

large impact on our methodology and approach to designing the project in order to present an option that fulfilled the brief. In an attempt to reduce project costs, we suggested that the client consider self-build; in particular, the ‘Walter Segal method’. Despite the precedence of self-build within the local area, as a procurement route it introduced complexity to the project in terms of costing, liability and CDM.Where we were compartmentalizing parts of the design using the design toolbox in order to satisfy the brief requirements, these then became the framework for a phased project that the client could pay for incrementally over the course of 5 years. The wish-list exercise proved to be beneficial in regards to a staged design as it clearly defined which parts of the client’s brief needed to take precedence over others.The feasibility study changed from being a design report from which the client may engage an architect to continue the design, to a feasibility study intended to secure funding.

62 Funding Status

Elm Tree Farm’s potential application for £150,000 of lottery funding has unfortunately proven unsuccessful.

Elm Tree Farm have been assesed as the parent charit, Brandon Trust, rather than the farm alone. Their turnover was too large in order for them to qualify for the funding.

Proceeding with this information:

We must continue with consideration that it is unknown when funds will become available to the farm for this project. Furthermore, all the money needed may not come at one time, making the ability for the project to be a multi-phased design more important than ever.

OurWishListalsobecomeshighlyinfluencialtowardsthedesignofthebuilding,due to the priorities set out by our client. Some aspects of the brief, although desired, may not be essential for the farm in initial phases.

A ‘build when funds are available’ approach to the design must be adopted.

LostFunding!

62 Funding Status

Elm Tree Farm’s potential application for £150,000 of lottery funding has unfortunately proven unsuccessful.

Elm Tree Farm have been assesed as the parent charit, Brandon Trust, rather than the farm alone. Their turnover was too large in order for them to qualify for the funding.

Proceeding with this information:

We must continue with consideration that it is unknown when funds will become available to the farm for this project. Furthermore, all the money needed may not come at one time, making the ability for the project to be a multi-phased design more important than ever.

OurWishListalsobecomeshighlyinfluencialtowardsthedesignofthebuilding,due to the priorities set out by our client. Some aspects of the brief, although desired, may not be essential for the farm in initial phases.

A ‘build when funds are available’ approach to the design must be adopted.

LostFunding!

CRITIQUEOFTHECONTEXT,PROCESS,ANDTHE PROPOSAL

CritiqueoftheDesignProcessW

ithin

EducationalSetting Though necessary for educational purposes,

I felt that the university requirement to document the process in so much rigour led less time spent on design based decisions. Ultimately, I felt that this led to weaknesses in the overall creative outcome for the client which did reflect the 1,148 billable hours that our team put into the project!If I was producing a feasibility study for a design project of this scope in practice, I would not deem it necessary to go into so much detail prior to securing funding. It would be more appropriate to focus our attention and time on the commercial viability, community benefit and procurement aspects of the project. Design and aesthetics though ultimately very important, can be communicated in a more ‘broad-brushstroke’ fashion as they will likely be changed once funding has been secured and preliminaries completed.

Above: Elm Tree Farm Feasibility Study, Own Photo

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 14

PPIA - Case Study

Critique of the ProcessLackofIntegrationwiththe

2015

Mas

terp

lan One critique I would have of our design

process would be the lack of consideration for the 2015 masterplan completed by the previous design team. Though we have a duty as designers to question the suitability of design interventions, I felt that our scheme did not respond sensitively enough to the areas of the farm that were to be developed next. In a professional context, I would assume the client would be more keen for us to consider the masterplan as they would likely have paid for that study and would not want to feel that their designers were not onboard with their overall vision.

Above: Elm Tree Farm 2015 masterplan visual, produced by the

2015 Elm Tree Farm Group

Above: Elm Tree Farm ‘Massive Model’, made by myself and Joe Copp

Critiqueofthe

Methodology Given the nature of the work carried out at the

farm, I feel that our methodology of producing digital design may have led us astray from the best design outcome. Given that much of the work undertaken in RIBA stage 3 onwards is inherently computer based, it might have been more pertinent to work with the farm staff more using ‘hands-on’ design mechanisms such as the ‘massive model’ that we used on bonfire night.

Above: Elm Tree Farm Hall final render, produced by myself

CritiqueoftheOutcome On the whole I feel that the proposal was a

success. I would like to see more time put into the design of interior spaces, particularly the client’s requested ‘quiet room’. Furthermore, the project’s detailing regarding the infill structures to be further refined so as to not waste space under the canopy unnecessarily. Finally, if continuing the project, then it would be essential to start getting into the details relating to accessibility. For instance, playful door handles that work at a variety of heights as well as the adjustable height desks for use with wheelchairs. Inevitably, such details would probably not be included in a feasibility study such as this.

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 15

PPIA - Case Study

Advice Given

OUTLINE OF AND CRITIQUE OF KEY ADVICE PROVIDED AND WHETHER OTHER SPECIALISMS WERE REQUIRED

Planning

We met with our clients 6 times over the course of the project discussing many topics that could be included in this section. Instead of listing many, I have chosen to discuss one in more detail. During one of our meetings, the question as to whether the proposal would require planning permission came up. Unsure of the answer, we felt that not having a response caused us to look unprofessional. Ellen commented that our design may be classed as ‘permitted development’ to Bristol City Council. I added that it seemed likely that the council would address the project in a positive light due to its sustainability goals, use of environmentally friendly materials.In hindsight it was unprofessional of us to provide an overly positive response that we were unsure of and instead should have noted it and suggested that we would look into it prior to our next meeting. When the discussion came up again with the client, we faced a difficult ‘u-turn’ as Elm Tree Farm’s location within the ‘Stapleton and Frome Valley Conservation Area’ meant that there is no way of avoiding the planning process.

In industry, I would look into the following in order to best advise the client from the outset.• Research planning overlays and recent

applications prior to the initial meetings in order to initiate ‘pre-planning discussions’.

• Ensure that the client was aware of all the planning implications that the design might be applicable to and the indicative fees relating to these; £385 based on a minor development of 50sqm in a conservation area (15/03/17).

• Establish with the client as to whether they would be interested in using a planning consultant to assist in the application.

• Decide how to address the Issues and Enhancement objectives within the Stapleton and Frome Valley Conservation Area ‘Bristol Local Plan’.

Left: Outline of the Stapleton and Frome Valley Conservation Area.

Taken from the ‘Stapleton and Frome Valley Conservation Bristol Local Plan’ pdf, downloaded from www.bristol.gov.uk. Accessed on the 07/03/17.

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 16

PPIA - Case Study

Costing, Statutory and Procurements

COMMENTARYONTHECOSTINGS,STATUTORYASPECTS,POSSIBLEPROCUREMENTROUTE

Is S

elf-

Build

the

Best

Option? As previously stated, the self-build procurement

technique raises a series of complexities that I will address in this section. Now that the project is continuing, there is reason to question the implications that self-build has on a project such as this, particularly as to whether or not other routes of procurement would be more efficient and/or more cost effective for the client.Self-build introduces a grey area in terms of liability and quality control. In a full self-build, the client takes on the role of the principal contractor under CDM and ultimately takes responsibility for all aspects of the site, from health and safety to quality control. This becomes increasingly complex if (like our proposal endorses), workers on site are

unskilled volunteers who might potentially make costly errors. In the end it might be necessary to consider other forms of procurement in order to limit the client liability. We suggested that the client might optimize their situation by partially contracting the self-build where the ‘serious’, riskier parts of the project in addition to management will be dealt with by an experienced contractor, leaving simpler parts of the build with the client. This is described as project team partnering in the RIBA Procurement Policy: (www.architecture.com, 2017). On reflection, I feel that it is really important to decide early on who is going to build the proposal to avoid the design overly dictating this.

Above: Self-Build cycle produced by myself for the Feasibility Study

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 17

PPIA - Case Study

Organisational Aspects

Costings For the ETF Farm Hall, I undertook a material

costing, outlining what the raw material costs would be if the client were to undertake a complete self-build. Though detailed to the nuts and bolts, the costing exercise did not give an indication as to how much it would have cost through a different procurement route. To some extent, this was the intended outcome considering the choice to self-build was largely due to a lack of funding necessary to pursue a fully contracted build. As discussed, the implications of management and statutory considerations might lend to a fully contracted build or partially contracted self-build. If the project were to move forward utilizing one of these forms of procurement, the following points would be worth factoring into the project costs:• Architectural fees – the work currently undertaken on the project has been done as a goodwill gesture for the purposes of education. If the client were to move forward with the design, it is likely that they will need to pay a qualified architect to complete the project and it would be up to the architect to present a fee proposal for this work. Common practices for such a fee might be: a percentage of the build costs, a lump sum fee or an hourly rate (www.designingbuildings.co.uk)• Contractor fees and overheads.• Preliminaries and consultants such as a land surveyor, engineer, quantity surveyor services consultant etc.• ‘One-off’ fees such as planning payments and title deed searches.

Above: Snapshots of the 3d model highlighting cost and the

product code of each element of the building. The top image shows

in internal structure and the bottom image shows the canopy.

StatutoryConsiderations There are many statutory requirements that

may need to be considered if the ETF farm hall was undertaken in practice. Having considered planning and CDM already, some other statutory requirements that would likely crop up are:

• The Building Regulations – particularly parts B (fire safety), E (resistance to passage of sound, necessary due to close proximity to neighbors), H (drainage and waste disposal), L (conservation of fuel and power) and part M (access to and use of buildings).

• The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

• Ofted inspection requirements. www.gov.co.uk. (2017)

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 18

PPIA - Case Study


COMMENTARY ON ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS

Like in a small practice, our group worked in a chameleon-like fashion, adapting to the work as and when it was required; therefore making it difficult to clearly state ‘who did what’.We attempted to allocate permanent roles within the design team during the initial weeks on the project, in accordance to the RIBA Plan of Work stage 1 (prepare project roles). For example, Ellen Sinclair took on the responsibility to keep minutes during our meetings and Joe Copp was nominated to act as client liaison.My role in the project was described by another member of the team as ‘the keeper of the design keys’. To clarify; as the project advanced, we opted to used 3d software to assist us. Having this control led to it being more of a coordinating role helping to organise the group’s design decisions and client feedback, before updating the model accordingly.

ReflectiononmyPersonal

Role

in th

e Pr

ojec

t

Our initial response was to organise the project by mapping the 2013 RIBA plan of the works against the time frame for the project. This was a successful organisational tool and we ended up organising the overall feasibility document using the same framework. We also felt that this was particularly useful when it came to presenting the document to the client as it was clear within the timeline of the project where we currently were at.

Organisational

Stru

ctur

e

Above: The Team at the Farm, Own Photo

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 19

PPIA - Case Study


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this document provides an executive summary of the project from the lens of professional practice. Having not worked formally in the UK, I have found this process to be highly educational and informative.Now that the project looks to continue, it will be valuable to use this document as a starting point to assess where the project needs to go next.Re

cap

and

Look

to

the

Futu

re

Above: ETF Hall Concept Sketchs by the team

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 20

PPIA - Case Study

Organisational AspectsBibliography Bristol.gov.uk.(2017). Online planning applications - bristol.gov.uk. [online] Available at: https://

www.bristol.gov.uk/planning-and-building-regulations/search-and-track-planning-applications [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].Green,R. (2012). Architect’s Guide to Running a Job. 1st ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Hse.gov.uk. (2017). Construction - Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015. [online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/2015/index.htm [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].Littlefield,D. (2015). Architect’s guide to running a practice. 1st ed. [Place of publication not identified]: Routledge.Ribaplanofwork.com. (2017). RIBA Plan of Work 2013 - View the Plan. [online] Available at: https://www.ribaplanofwork.com/PlanOfWork.aspx [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].www.architecture.com. (2017). Procurement Policy PDF. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/General/Procurementpolicy.pdf [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].www.gov.co.uk. (2017). Building Bulletin 102. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276698/Building_Bulletin_102_designing_for_disabled_children_and_children_with_SEN.pdf [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].www.gov.co.uk. (2017). Schools, colleges and children’s services : Inspections - GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/topic/schools-colleges-childrens-services/inspections [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 21

PPIA - Case Study


Risk

Ass

esm

ents

App

endi

x The following documents have been included to support the reflections within this document. All correspondence, minutes, work hours and risk assessments can be found within part F of the feasibility study.

174

Appendix D: Risk Assessments

Elm Tree Farm – UWE live project Risk Assessment

Event date: 11 OCTOBER 2016 Assessed by: Katy Lodge

Event: Volunteer Day Date of assessment: 8 OCTOBER 2016

Site location: Elm Tree Farm Onsite

What are the hazards? Who might be harmed and how?

Action taken to mitigate Likelihood Severity Risk Additional comments

Physical injury - Working with animals (scratch/bite)

UWE Student Follow the instructions and advice of staff at all times and work in pairs.

1 2 L Be aware of the animal working environment

Working in unhygienic conditions UWE students Make sure we wash hands especially before lunch and leaving and are aware of cleanliness if we are working with animals

1 1 L

General slips /

Trips

UWE students Wear appropriate footwear such as trainers or walking boots, make sure you stick to appropriate paths, walkways and onsite.

3 1 L

Working with

unfamiliar equipment

UWE students Make sure to have full safety instructions regarding the equipment before use and make sure to follow the instruc-tions.

Wear suitable shoes and clothing

1 2 M

Lifting heavy objects UWE students Lift with knees bent and straight back, never overload 1 1 L

Working alongside disabled/special need workers

UWE students Ask for advice from staff and follow them, understand their needs

1 1 L

Key

Probability SEVERITY RISK

1 – Unlikely

2 – Possible

3 – Probable

1 – Minor harm

2 – Serious

3 - Critical

L – Low 1-3

M – Medium 4-6

H – HIGH 7-9

Appendix D: Risk Assesments

176

Elm Tree Farm – UWE live project Risk Assessment

Event date: 5 NOVEMBER 2016 Assessed by: Katy Lodge

Event: Bonfire Evening Date of assessment: 3 NOVEMBER 2016

Potato Printing, interactive model of the farm

and research boards

Site location: Field on the premises of Elm Tree Farm, Stapleton

What are the hazards? Who might be harmed and how?

Action taken to mitigate Likelihood Severity Risk Additional comments

Layout of marquee and tables impacting on means of escape and routes

General Public Layout of the marque and set up is to be pre-planned making sure that the exits and means of escape are maintained and everyone is aware of the layout on site.

1 3 M v

Paint – allergy and contact with eyes and skin

Participants Where possible no hazardous substances to be used, and make sure that paint is water based.

Those taking part need to be supervised, according to their age and ability whilst also watching to check for no allergic reactions.

Make sure that they thoroughly wash their hands after especially if paint is on them.

2 1 L Make sure the paint is water based and non-allergenic when buying materials

Paint spillage causing slip hazard Participants / General Public

Any spillage is cleaned up immediately

All free standing items to be located sensibly, on level ground, and observed.

2 1 L

Misuse of provided apparatus e.g. young children eating paint

children Close supervision of apparatus to be prioritised and emphasised to relevant parents/guardians.

1 1 L

Tripping over site, collapse of interactive site model

General public/ participants Site model to be carefully set up on level ground, easily visible and well-lit to avoid any collapse/knocking over if tripped/bumped in to.

3 1 L

General slips /

Trips – particularly uneven area in field

General public/ participants Make sure site is well lit 2 1 L

Collapse of marquee or items within due to weather or unsuitable erection

General Public within the marque and adjacent

Competent erecting and dismantling the marquee 1 2 M

Sources of ignition within the marquee, e.g. lighting

General Public Smoking must not be permitted within the marquee

Marquee fabric made of fire retardant material.

Electrical equipment suitable for environment and in safe condition.

Fire extinguishers available within or in close proximity marquee.

1 3 H Will check with the Gaby at Elm Tree Farm who is in charge of the event itself

Fire/ Burning and fumes Members of the public and property

Site the bonfire in a clean and unenclosed area a safe distance from buildings

Take account of wind direction on the day and make sure there is a perimeter around the fire to prevent proximity of people to the bonfire

Buckets of water/sand/extinguishers need to be situated at intervals around the bonfire perimeter

1 3 H The bonfire is to be set up and looked after by Elm Tree Farm, however it would be good for us to be aware of the situation

Key

Probability SEVERITY RISK

1 – Unlikely

2 – Possible

3 – Probable

1 – Minor harm

2 – Serious

3 - Critical

L – Low 1-3

M – Medium 4-6

H – HIGH 7-9

NICHOLAS PALEY

page 22

PPIA - Case Study

Organisational Aspects 193

Tim

e S

heet

Liv

e P

roje

ct 2

016

Pro

ject

Elm

Tre

e Fa

rm

Stud

ent n

ame

Nic

hola

s P

aley

Year

2016

Tota

lM

onth

Sept

embe

rD

ayTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FD

ate

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

Hou

rs0

Mon

thO

ctob

erD

ayS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

Dat

e 1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

3031

Hou

rs1

55

54

38

37.

56

87

1012

48

5FT

FTFT

FTFT

FTFT

FT0

00

210

3.5

Mon

thN

ovem

ber

Day

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

Dat

e 1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

30

Hou

rs8

37

510

92

93

312

84

715

710

1212

165

167

Mon

thD

ecem

ber

Day

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SS

MTu

WTh

FS

SM

TuW

ThF

SD

ate

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

31

Hou

rs0

Gra

nd to

tal

270.

5

1

Tim

e Sh

eet

This page has been left blank - res.cloudinary.com · PPIA - Case Study The Remit and Scope County...

Documents

Transcript of This page has been left blank - res.cloudinary.com · PPIA - Case Study The Remit and Scope County...