Sunday, July 03, 2005
Senedd
I had almost forgotten that I had this picture of the new Assembly Chamber or Senedd as it is to be called, on my camera. To the left of it the Pierhead building is completely clad in scaffolding as workmen seek to renew the roof, whilst behind it are the existing offices, which will continue to be occupied as now once the new chamber and committee rooms are in use.
At what point we will be in situ is a matter for debate. I understood that the intention was to occupy the building at the beginning of next term, from September 19th to be precise. However, to do that the external works would have needed to be completed by the end of May so that fitting out could commence. An inspection of the building from the third floor of Crickhowell House reveals that a number of glass panels have still to be fitted, reputedly because those that were delivered were the wrong specification and needed to be sent back.
As a result of this it seems unlikely that we can hold any meetings in the building much before half term, the 31st October. Talk now is that we will be lucky to be using it by the end of this calendar year. Still, I am sure it is worth the wait!
Comments:
<< Home
I didn,t know it was to be called 'Senedd'. It's bound to cause confusion as Senedd is the Welsh word for Parliment.
Worth the wait for whom? Taxpayers who've had to put up with a rise in cost from the original £12 million to the current £70 million and management by an Assembly committee that was called incompetent by the president of the RIBA?
I'm sure you'll enjoy every overspent penny of it.
I'm sure you'll enjoy every overspent penny of it.
David, the issue of the management of the project is separate to that of the project itself. Remember that the £12m cost was first mooted by Ron Davies before the building was properly appraised. Technical issues such as the fact that the original design did not include disabled access added to the cost as well as mismanagement before a fixed price contract was agreed.
As it happens my last comment was meant to be ironic but I appreciate that irony does not come across well in print.
I have to admit (Rhys and David C) that my first thought on seeing the name was that it will cause confusion too. Actually, as the building is to be handed over to the Assembly Parliamentary Service (a.k.a. the Presiding Officer), it is for House Committee to name things regardless of the considerations of majority etc.
The House Committee has determined to defer consideration of uses for the Neuadd and Debating Chamber until things have settled down and we have a chance to evaluate the pattern of use of the new and existing facilities.
One suggestion for the chamber is to turn it into a flexible meeting space but it is unlikely that a decision will be taken this side of the 2007 elections therefore.
As it happens my last comment was meant to be ironic but I appreciate that irony does not come across well in print.
I have to admit (Rhys and David C) that my first thought on seeing the name was that it will cause confusion too. Actually, as the building is to be handed over to the Assembly Parliamentary Service (a.k.a. the Presiding Officer), it is for House Committee to name things regardless of the considerations of majority etc.
The House Committee has determined to defer consideration of uses for the Neuadd and Debating Chamber until things have settled down and we have a chance to evaluate the pattern of use of the new and existing facilities.
One suggestion for the chamber is to turn it into a flexible meeting space but it is unlikely that a decision will be taken this side of the 2007 elections therefore.
.
The competition set out a functional specification for the building, and a price limit of £12 million including fees
Source:
www.wales.gov.uk / assemblybuilding / projectupdate / press4.htm
So it was an initial project specifiation. The cost estimate after taking into account disability issues was, according to the same document, £22.80 million
I understand the steep raking to allow for more flattering camera angles may still cause some disability accessibility problems. Edwina Hart has said:
There must be a balance between the requirements of the disabled and requirements of the media
without explaing why she thinks this is true.
The cost now is estimated at around £70 million.
The competition set out a functional specification for the building, and a price limit of £12 million including fees
Source:
www.wales.gov.uk / assemblybuilding / projectupdate / press4.htm
So it was an initial project specifiation. The cost estimate after taking into account disability issues was, according to the same document, £22.80 million
I understand the steep raking to allow for more flattering camera angles may still cause some disability accessibility problems. Edwina Hart has said:
There must be a balance between the requirements of the disabled and requirements of the media
without explaing why she thinks this is true.
The cost now is estimated at around £70 million.
.
I don't agree, though. It can't be the case that any cost is justifiable because the building is significant. It's a permanent reminder of how the Assembly can't manage money and projects.
This 'incompetent' (pres. RIBA) management shoots down your argument for further powers and the ability to levy taxes, don't you think? The Assembly has shown it can't hack it, even when trying to sort out its own debating chamber. Why trust the WAG with anything else?
I don't agree, though. It can't be the case that any cost is justifiable because the building is significant. It's a permanent reminder of how the Assembly can't manage money and projects.
This 'incompetent' (pres. RIBA) management shoots down your argument for further powers and the ability to levy taxes, don't you think? The Assembly has shown it can't hack it, even when trying to sort out its own debating chamber. Why trust the WAG with anything else?
David, you are mixing up several things at once here and coming to an unsubstantiated conclusion.
Yes, the management of the building costs and of the project itself left a lot to be desired. That however does not negate the value of the building nor its significance.
Secondly, it was not the Assembly which managed the project but the Welsh Assembly Government. You do not abolish a democratic institution because of the way that its government is run, you change the Government. You might as well say that we should abolish the Westminster Parliament because of the failures of cost control and project management on Portcullis House, when it was the UK Government who is responsible.
On this basis the need for further legislative and tax varying powers is predicated on the need to ensure that the Assembly and WAG can do what they were elected to do. The mismanagement of one project (especially when a large part of that mismanagement came under the Secretary of State for Wales before the Assembly was established) is not an argument to prevent that process.
Yes, the management of the building costs and of the project itself left a lot to be desired. That however does not negate the value of the building nor its significance.
Secondly, it was not the Assembly which managed the project but the Welsh Assembly Government. You do not abolish a democratic institution because of the way that its government is run, you change the Government. You might as well say that we should abolish the Westminster Parliament because of the failures of cost control and project management on Portcullis House, when it was the UK Government who is responsible.
On this basis the need for further legislative and tax varying powers is predicated on the need to ensure that the Assembly and WAG can do what they were elected to do. The mismanagement of one project (especially when a large part of that mismanagement came under the Secretary of State for Wales before the Assembly was established) is not an argument to prevent that process.
.
.
You're not recalling things accurately, Peter. The client described as incompetent by the President of the RIBA was an all party committee, not just the WAG.
I've taken an interest in four things to do with the Assembly and the WAG: the investigation into 100 Welsh Heroes; the Assembly's website; the management of the NHS in Wales; and the management of the new building. All have been a complete mess, incompetence mixed with mendacity.
.
You're not recalling things accurately, Peter. The client described as incompetent by the President of the RIBA was an all party committee, not just the WAG.
I've taken an interest in four things to do with the Assembly and the WAG: the investigation into 100 Welsh Heroes; the Assembly's website; the management of the NHS in Wales; and the management of the new building. All have been a complete mess, incompetence mixed with mendacity.
The President of the RIBA is wrong. The client is WAG. The all-party Committee is advisory only. All the issues you have taken an interest in are Government matters. As I said if you are not happy then change the Government, do not abolish the institution.
.
Hmmm...well, ok, I grant you on the NHS and the Heroes.
I think the website's shockingly bad and would have been under any other administration too (whether they'd have broken the DP act and contravened their own privacy statement, as they did in my case, is another issue).
I'll check on the RIBA statement. He could have been wrong,as you say.
Still, we're unlikely to get a change in controlling party and I'm damned if I'd grant them even more powers given their history.
Hmmm...well, ok, I grant you on the NHS and the Heroes.
I think the website's shockingly bad and would have been under any other administration too (whether they'd have broken the DP act and contravened their own privacy statement, as they did in my case, is another issue).
I'll check on the RIBA statement. He could have been wrong,as you say.
Still, we're unlikely to get a change in controlling party and I'm damned if I'd grant them even more powers given their history.
The bad news (depending on how you look at it) is that even the website is the responsibility of WAG. The good news (?) is that two new websites are being developed along the Scottish model. One will be the WAG site the other will belong to the Parliamentary side. Let us hope that they are both accessible and DDA compliant. I have already made my views known on this regarding the Parliamentary site via House Committee which has responsibility for such matters and on which I sit.
As for the new building. WAG is building it. When it is finished they will sign it over to the Parliamentary side to run.
Post a Comment
As for the new building. WAG is building it. When it is finished they will sign it over to the Parliamentary side to run.
<< Home
