DOCSLIB.ORG

THE TEMPORARY HOME for Mps MUST NOT BE a FOLLY | 1 HOME for Mps MUST NOT BE a FOLLY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE TEMPORARYTHE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY | 1 HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY www.savebritainsheritage.orgJune 2019 2 | THE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY £400m to demolish and replace SAVE Britain’s Heritage is extremely a 30-year-old grade II* listed concerned about the proposed building is a waste of public money. demolition of Richmond House, a grade II* listed building, less than There are quicker, cheaper and thirty years old. This beautiful, much less destructive alternatives modern building lies in the heart of than the demolition of Richmond the parliamentary estate and in the House. The full facts are not being Whitehall Conservation Area. It was presented. Information is being built to exemplary standards, of withheld. high quality materials. Its modelled façades were designed to intricately compliment two other highly regarded buildings, Norman Shaw North and South, named after their architect. Richmond House was listed on the advice of Historic England, the government’s own heritage advisers. Any other public or private owner under English planning law would be required to justify the demolition of a highly listed public building. www.savebritainsheritage.org THE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY | 3 The plans currently out for consultation are unjustified the point where the press stand is erected on for the following reasons: Remembrance Day to allow photographers to get the best pictures of this uniquely solemn occasion. m Wasteful unnecessary destruction: The A security pavilion on Whitehall will obstruct views plans include the complete demolition of grade of the retained façade of Richmond House, and II* listed Richmond House apart from parts block the public space in front the building. of the front façade on Whitehall. Demolition and redevelopment of this site will cost at least Until now it has been thought that Peers would fend £400million. The ‘temporary chamber’ will be a for themselves in a requisitioned Queen Elizabeth II permanent, hugely expensive building project and Conference Centre (currently one of London’s three there are no firm plans for its future use. major conference venues). Now it emerges that this too could require hugely expensive security measures m There are alternative sites: There are at least – ironic because the award winning building has just 8 alternative sites in the vicinity of Richmond been painstakingly refurbished at a cost of £13m – a House and Whitehall that do not involve the level major works programme to rid it of clutter, show off of waste, expense and destruction as currently the original design and bring it up to international proposed. The feasibility reports of these other conference venue standards. Now it is evident that options have not been produced – despite as the centre sits outside the security footprint of the repeated requests. The site of the temporary parliamentary/Whitehall estate, a new security barrier Commons Chamber could have been resolved may be required - which would impact on neighbouring already but for the insistence of the Parliamentary businesses, as well as the outlook from the UNESCO authorities that the temporary chamber must world heritage site of Westminster Abbey. replicate the exact form and dimensions of the existing chamber. It is increasingly clear this stands Further proposed works involve the destruction of in the way of a reasonable solution. The House another important example of Post Modernism of Commons must recognise that the size and architecture. The large annexe added behind No 1 form of the Chamber can be adjusted to achieve Parliament Street was designed by Sir Hugh Casson, a a quicker, cheaper solution and that for example past President of the Royal Academy and opened by electronic voting could be adopted in place of the Prince Charles in 1991. It is set to be demolished as space-consuming division lobbies. part of the wider Northern Estate plans. m Richmond House can be refurbished as The proposed demolition plans lack justification. No exemplar, low energy offices: This is an alternative feasibility options for other sites have been opportunity for Parliament to lead by example published. on climate change and sustainability. Richmond House is beautifully designed with high quality materials. It could be refurbished as an exemplar How can we know that the low energy, naturally ventilated office building. In carbon terms, the demolition of this building is demolition option is the best value the equivalent of over 15,000 flights from London option when no comparisons have to New York. See the Mark Hines report for SAVE Britain’s Heritage here. been presented? m Fortress Westminster: The proposed 3m high railings along the length of Parliament Street and Why is Parliament proposing the around the replacement Richmond House are demolition of its own historic reminiscent of Northern Ireland in the time of the Troubles and dramatically reduce the accessible buildings and our heritage without public space in front of the Cenotaph at precisely robust scrutiny? www.savebritainsheritage.org 4 | THE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SITES 1. Horseguards Parade as proposed by Foster & Partners and Sir John Ritblat (provides temporary Chambers for both Houses – the Commons and the Lords) 2. Car park of Ministry of Defence 3. a) and b) Main courtyard of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Treasury courtyard 4. Courtyard of existing Richmond House (where the Chamber could fit if the dimensions of the chamber were adjusted) 5. Portcullis House Atrium as proposed by Sir Michael Hopkins 6. Church House (this served as the Chamber of the Lords during World War II and has extensive offices for Peers and staff) 7. College Green (now used by Broadcasters) 8. Victoria Gardens (currently chosen site for Holocaust Museum) www.savebritainsheritage.org THE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY | 5 PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives schemes which do not require the m The second alternative is an imaginative scheme destruction of Richmond House are presented here: from Foster and Partners to build a temporary Parliament on Horseguards Parade. m Plans prepared for SAVE by Ian Chalk Architects and Hopkins Architects show how a temporary m Sir Michael Hopkins has also shown how a chamber could fit within the courtyards of the temporary Commons Chamber could fit within Foreign and Commonwealth Office building or the the Atrium of Portcullis House. adjoining Government Office on Great George Street, otherwise known as the HM Treasury and HMRC building, on the corner of Parliament Street and Great George Street. THE LARGE TREASURY AND FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE COURTYARDS At SAVE’s instigation Ian Chalk Architects and Hopkins within the courtyard of the existing buildings. As shown, Architects have produced drawings showing how the these would be temporary but robust structures. They two chambers could be located across HM Treasury could be reduced in size if the division lobbies were Relocation of Parliament Chambers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The replaced by electronic voting (see images below and chambers, associated lobbies and galleries could fit overleaf). The two chambers could be moved to the courtyards of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ian Chalk Architects and the HM Treasury/HMRC building Ian Chalk Architects June 2019 www.savebritainsheritage.org Local Figureground d E c YAR TERRA NERS o d N o M . MMISSI ch PoRTcuLLIS houSE ST RI co E dg RI b tunnel PARLIAMENT ST. Local Figureground underground existing ` underground extrnded connection PARLIAMENT SQ. STREET WNINg do d E c YAR TERRA NERS o d N o M . MMISSI ch PoRTcuLLIS houSE ST RI co E dg RI 6 | THE TEMPORARY HOME FOR MPs MUST NOT BE A FOLLY b . tunnel ST PARLIAMENT ST. underground Local Figureground chARLES existing ` kINg underground extrnded connection d E c YAR TERRA NERS o d PARLIAMENT SQ. N o M . MMISSI ch PoRTcuLLIS houSE ST RI co E dg RI b tunnel STREET PARLIAMENT ST. underground existing ` WNINg d n rou underg do ed d ction ne extrnn co PARLIAMENT SQ. FoREIgN ANd coMMoNWEALTh ET STRE INg WN do oFFIcE h.M TREASuRY . ST chARLES kINg FoREIgN ANd coMMoNWEALTh oFFIcE h.M TREASuRY . ST gEoRgE houSE oF coMMoNS gREAT cIRcuLATIoN PRoMENAdE ANd . TEMPoRARY MP AccoMModATIoN houSE oF LoRdS ST SEcuRE PERIMETER IMPERIAL WAR RooMS dEFENSIbLE oPENINgS PubLIc ENTRANcE PubLIc AccESS MP AccESS houRSE guARdS Rd. chARLES ExISTINg uNdERgRouNd RAIL TuNNELS ExTENSIoN oF ExISTINg TuNNEL To PRovIdE RouTE INTo h.M TREASuRY Ian Chalk Architects June 2019 kINg . ST gEoRgE houSE oF coMMoNS FoREIgN ANd coMMoNWEALTh gREAT oFFIcE h.M TREASuRY cIRcuLATIoN PRoMENAdE ANd TEMPoRARY MP AccoMModATIoN houSE oF LoRdS . ST gEoRgE houSE oSEF cocuMMREoNS PERIMETER gREAT IMPERIAL WAR cIRcuLATIoN PRoMENAdE ANd RooMS TEMPoRARYdEFENSI MP AccoMMbLEodATI ooNPENINgS PubLIc ENTRANcE houSE oF LoRdS PubLIc AccESS SEcuRE PERIMETER MP AccESS houRSE guARdS Rd. IMPERIAL WAR RooMS dEFENSIbLE oPENINgS PubLIc ENTRANcE PubLIc AccESS MP AccESSExISTINg uNdERgRouNd RAIL TuNNELS houRSE guARdS Rd. ExISTINgE uxNTENSIdERgRouoNdN RAIL o TFu NNELSExISTINg TuNNEL To ExTENSIPRoN oovF ExIISTINdEg RTuouNNELTE To INTo h M TREASuRY PRovIdE RouTE INTo h .M TREASuRY . Ian Chalk Architects Ian Chalk Architects June 2019 June 2019 The two chambers would be connected via a link building in King Charles Street Ian Chalk Architects Though feasibility studies for these sites have been would echo the existing branch tunnel leading from produced, Parliament has refused to release them. Westminster underground station into Portcullis House Instead they have been ruled out as beyond the secure for pass holder access to the Palace of Westminster. perimeter of Parliament’s Northern Estate. This new branch tunnel could be secured against intrusion or unauthorised access through use of security There is already a London Underground underpass June 2019 rated portals similar to those used in the main entranceIan Chalk Architects beneath Parliament Street at the Parliament end of of Portcullis House.
Recommended publications
  • 17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/ Hungerford Footbridges

    17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/ Hungerford Footbridges

    17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/ 149 Hungerford Footbridges 285 The Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges flank the Hungerford railway bridge, built in 1863. The footbridges were designed by the architects Lifschutz Davidson and were opened as a Millennium Project in 2003. 286 There are two Viewing Locations at Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges, 17A and 17B, referring to the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. 150 London View Management Framework Viewing Location 17A Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream N.B for key to symbols refer to image 1 Panorama from Assessment Point 17A.1 Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream - close to the Lambeth bank Panorama from Assessment Point 17A.2 Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream - close to the Westminster bank 17 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges 151 Description of the View 287 Two Assessment Points are located on the upstream side of Landmarks include: the bridge (17A.1 and 17A.2) representing the wide swathe Palace of Westminster (I) † of views available. A Protected Silhouette of the Palace of Towers of Westminster Abbey (I) Westminster is applied between Assessment Points 17A.1 The London Eye and 17A.2. Westminster Bridge (II*) Whitehall Court (II*) 288 The river dominates the foreground. In the middle ground the London Eye and Embankment trees form distinctive Also in the views: elements. The visible buildings on Victoria Embankment The Shell Centre comprise a broad curve of large, formal elements of County Hall (II*) consistent height and scale, mostly of Portland stone. St Thomas’s Hospital (Victorian They form a strong and harmonious building line. section) (II) St George’s Wharf, Vauxhall 289 The Palace of Westminster, part of the World Heritage Site, Millbank Tower (II) terminates the view, along with the listed Millbank Tower.
  • Parliamentary Buildings by Richard Kelly

    Parliamentary Buildings by Richard Kelly

    BRIEFING PAPER Number 8568, 16 May 2019 Parliamentary Buildings By Richard Kelly (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19 Contents: 1. Restoration and Renewal 2. Progress so far 3. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 4. The Bill 5. Northern Estate Programme www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 2017-19 Contents Summary 3 The Bill 3 Background 3 Northern Estate Programme 4 1. Restoration and Renewal 6 2. Progress so far 8 2.1 Identifying the extent of the problem and developing proposals 8 2.2 Joint Committee review of options 8 2.3 Parliament agrees with the Joint Committee’s recommendations 10 2.4 The debate in the Commons 11 2.5 Subsequent developments 13 3. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill 14 3.1 Looking forward to the draft bill 14 3.2 Publication of the draft bill 14 3.3 Joint Committee to scrutinise the draft bill 15 3.4 Pre-legislative scrutiny 16 Powers and duties of the Sponsor Body 16 4. The Bill 23 4.1 Introduction 23 4.2 The “Parliamentary building works” – clause 1 24 4.3 The Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body – clause 2 24 Schedule 1 26 4.4 The Delivery Authority – clause 3 27 Schedule 2 28 4.5 Relationship between the Sponsor Body and Parliament – clause 6 29 4.6 Parliamentary approval for works and funding – clause 7 29 4.7 Parliamentary Works Estimate Commission – clause 8 30 Schedule 3 30 4.8 Funding – clause 9 30 Schedule 4 30 4.9 Abolition and dissolution of the statutory bodies – clauses 10 and 11 31 4.10 Commencement – clause 14 32 4.11 Remaining clauses 33 5.
  • Guide to Compensation for Members of Parliament 2007

    Guide to Compensation for Members of Parliament 2007

    Where are we? Who can I contact? The Quick Guide 2007 We are located on the third floor, 7 Millbank. Salaries, Allowances etc. for Members of Parliament The address is: Enquiries and Advice Department of Finance and Administration 020 7219 1340 House of Commons e-mail [email protected] London SW1A 0AA Horse Guards Road Victoria Embankment Personnel Advice Service 1 King Charles Street Derby Gate Parliament Street Advice on personnel or employment practice 2 3 020 7219 2080 e-mail [email protected] 4 5 Great George Street Westminster Bridge Centrally Provided Computer Equipment Storey’s Gate PICT Service Desk on 020 7219 2001 Department of Finance and Administration Parliament Houses of Training for Members’ staff Parliament River Square Thames Bookings WWP Training Ltd on 0870 606 0088 St. Margaret’s Street www.w4mp.org Broad Sanctuary Westminster Abby Great Smith Street Members’ Pensions 020 7219 4962 Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Service Great College Street Office Manager 020 7219 1484 Great Peter Street Marsham Street Occupational Health Physician Sq th u Millbank i a 6 m r e S 020 7219 4782 1 Norman Shaw North Practice Nurse 020 7219 5103 2 Norman Shaw South 3 1 Derby Gate Horseferry Road Lambeth Bridge 4 1 Parliament Street Emergencies 5 Portcullis House Security Control 3333 April 2007 6 7 Millbank Salaries & Allowances April 2007 Travel Other Allowances Member’s Salary from 1 April 2007 £60,675 per year Select Committee Chairman’s Salary Travel for Members In addition, Members are entitled to: from 1 April
  • Vaping in Workplaces and Public Places November 2018

    Vaping in Workplaces and Public Places November 2018

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping Vaping in workplaces and public places November 2018 Contents 3 Introduction 4 Recommendations 5 Existing vaping policies 6 The importance of vaping policies 7 Responsible vaping 8 Vaping in Parliament 8 Second hand vapour: the evidence 9 Appendix 1: sample workplace vaping policy 10 Appendix 2: Parliamentary Estate vaping policy 11 References Disclaimer This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The facts presented, and views expressed in this report are those of the APPG members. 2 Mark Pawsey MP Chairman of the APPG for Vaping Introduction As an introduction to this topic, it is important to highlight that There was also a sense in the evidence we gathered that vaping is not smoking, nor are vapers the same as smokers. many employers and public places simply had not considered Vaping has its own behavioural characteristics and crucially, it vaping and vapers as a separate category to smoking or is not subject to legislation prohibiting smoking indoors or in had not considered vaping at all. There was a clear lack of certain locations. Public Health England has also published understanding about vaping behaviour; for example knowing clear guidance that vaping and smoking must be considered that vapers use their devices in frequent small doses separately. throughout the day rather than a single significant dose from a cigarette.
  • Siebert, S. (2020) Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Buildings As a Vehicle for Change

    Siebert, S. (2020) Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Buildings As a Vehicle for Change

    Siebert, S. (2020) Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Buildings as a Vehicle for Change. Project Report. University of Glasgow. doi: 10.36399/gla.pubs.223191. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/223191/1/223191.pdf Deposited on: 11 September 2020 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Research Report Restoration and Renewal of Parliament: Buildings as a vehicle for change Sabina Siebert Professor of Management University of Glasgow [email protected] February 2020 INTRODUCTION This report summarises the findings from my 13-month POST Academic Fellowship of “The Parliament and Westminster Palace: The role of buildings in the preservation of institutional traditions, symbols and customs” funded by the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (ES/M500471). The project started in April 2018 and the data collection was completed in May 2019. This project aimed to explore the links between the institution of the Westminster Parliament and the buildings in which it is located. The main research questions were: To what extent are the workings of Parliament as an institution intertwined with the buildings and their current design? Would altering the buildings change the existing practices? I present the findings from my research under three headings: (1) Buildings as a resource; (2) Buildings as a constraint; and (3) Buildings as a vehicle for change. Investigating the role of the buildings in preserving the workings, traditions and customs of Parliament is particularly timely given the ongoing discussions related to the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) project and the planned move of Parliament to a temporary location.
  • An Examination of the Artist's Depiction of the City and Its Gardens 1745-1756

    An Examination of the Artist's Depiction of the City and Its Gardens 1745-1756

    Durham E-Theses Public and private space in Canaletto's London: An examination of the artist's depiction of the city and its gardens 1745-1756 Hudson, Ferne Olivia How to cite: Hudson, Ferne Olivia (2000) Public and private space in Canaletto's London: An examination of the artist's depiction of the city and its gardens 1745-1756, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4252/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Public and Private Space in Canaletto's London. An Examination of the Artist's Depiction of the City and its Gardens 1745-1756. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any form, including Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent.
  • The Portcullis Revised August 2010

    The Portcullis Revised August 2010

    Factsheet G9 House of Commons Information Office General Series The Portcullis Revised August 2010 Contents Introduction 2 Other uses for the Portcullis 2 Charles Barry and the New Palace 3 Modern uses 4 This factsheet has been archived so the content City of Westminster 4 and web links may be out of date. Please visit Westminster fire office 4 our About Parliament pages for current Other users 5 information. Styles 5 Appendix A 7 Examples of uses of the Portcullis 7 Further reading 8 Contact information 8 Feedback form 9 The crowned portcullis has come to be accepted during the twentieth century as the emblem of both Houses of Parliament. As with many aspects of parliamentary life, this has arisen through custom and usage rather than as a result of any conscious decision. This factsheet describes the history and use of the Portcullis. August 2010 FS G 09 Ed 3.5 ISSN 0144-4689 © Parliamentary Copyright (House of Commons) 2009 May be reproduced for purposes of private study or research without permission. Reproduction for sale or other commercial purposes not permitted. 2 The Portcullis House of Commons Information Office Factsheet G9 Introduction Since 1967, the crowned portcullis has been used exclusively on House of Commons stationery. It replaced an oval device, which had been in use since the turn of the twentieth century, on the recommendation of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services). The portcullis probably came to be associated with the Palace of Westminster through its use, along with Tudor roses, fleurs-de-lys and pomegranates, as decoration in the rebuilding of the Palace after the fire of 1512.
  • Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group

    Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group

    WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN Illustration credits and copyright references for photographs, maps and other illustrations are under negotiation with the following organisations: Dean and Chapter of Westminster Westminster School Parliamentary Estates Directorate Westminster City Council English Heritage Greater London Authority Simmons Aerofilms / Atkins Atkins / PLB / Barry Stow 2 WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including St. Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site Management Plan Prepared on behalf of the Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group, by a consortium led by Atkins, with Barry Stow, conservation architect, and tourism specialists PLB Consulting Ltd. The full steering group chaired by English Heritage comprises representatives of: ICOMOS UK DCMS The Government Office for London The Dean and Chapter of Westminster The Parliamentary Estates Directorate Transport for London The Greater London Authority Westminster School Westminster City Council The London Borough of Lambeth The Royal Parks Agency The Church Commissioners Visit London 3 4 WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE S I T E M ANAGEMENT PLAN FOREWORD by David Lammy MP, Minister for Culture I am delighted to present this Management Plan for the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site. For over a thousand years, Westminster has held a unique architectural, historic and symbolic significance where the history of church, monarchy, state and law are inexorably intertwined. As a group, the iconic buildings that form part of the World Heritage Site represent masterpieces of monumental architecture from medieval times on and which draw on the best of historic construction techniques and traditional craftsmanship.
  • The Architectural Practice of Gerard Wight and William Lucas from 1885 to 1894

    The Architectural Practice of Gerard Wight and William Lucas from 1885 to 1894

    ABPL90382 Minor Thesis Jennifer Fowler Student ID: 1031421 22 June 2020 Boom Mannerism: The Architectural Practice of Gerard Wight and William Lucas from 1885 to 1894 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Urban and Cultural Heritage, Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne Frontispiece: Herbert Percival Bennett Photograph of Collins Street looking east towards Elizabeth Street, c.1894, glass lantern slide, Gosbel Collection, State Library of Victoria. Salway, Wight and Lucas’ Mercantile Bank of 1888 with dome at centre above tram. URL: http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/54894. Abstract To date there has been no thorough research into the architectural practice of Wight and Lucas with only a few of their buildings referred to with brevity in histories and articles dealing with late nineteenth-century Melbourne architecture. The Boom era firm of Wight and Lucas from 1885 to 1894 will therefore be investigated in order to expand their catalogue of works based upon primary research and field work. Their designs will be analysed in the context of the historiography of the Boom Style outlined in various secondary sources. The practice designed numerous branches for the Melbourne Savings Bank in the metropolitan area and collaborated with other Melbourne architects when designing a couple of large commercial premises in the City of Melbourne. These Mannerist inspired classical buildings fit the general secondary descriptions of what has been termed the Boom Style of the 1880s and early 1890s. However, Wight and Lucas’ commercial work will be assessed in terms of its style, potential overseas influences and be compared to similar contemporary Melbourne architecture to firstly reveal their design methods and secondly, to attempt to give some clarity to the overall definition of Melbourne’s Boom era architecture and the firm’ place within this period.
  • Northern Estate Programme Norman Shaw North Standalone

    Northern Estate Programme Norman Shaw North Standalone

    Northern Estate Programme Norman Shaw North Standalone - Archaeological Statement March 2021 00NSN-2131-MLA-XX-XX-T-XX-RG-10344 Status: S2 Revision: C01 Version Date Name Reviewed By Description of Sign-off Changes C01 29/03/2021 Ashley Blair Rupert For Planning Rosalind Morris Featherby & Rosalind Morris -1- Norman Shaw North Standalone Archaeological Statement ContentsContents ................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure List ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Methodology and sources consulted .............................................................................................. 8 3 Site location, topography and geology ......................................................................................... 10 4 Archaeological and historical background .................................................................................... 14 5 Statement of significance.............................................................................................................. 23 6 Impact of proposals ...................................................................................................................... 26 7 Conclusion and recommendations ..............................................................................................
  • Chapter 4: Facilities for Staff

    Chapter 4: Facilities for Staff

    House of Commons Staff Handbook Chapter 4: Facilities for Staff 1. About this Chapter 1.1 This chapter covers the main staff facilities on the Parliamentary Estate. It explains: • catering and retail facilities • the gym and other sports and social facilities • church and quiet room facilities • cash dispensers, post office, travel office gift shops and hairdressers • how to gain access to the Visitor Route • access information for the Palace of Westminster and the Parliamentary Estate • lost property, car parking, late night transport service and sleeping accommodation 2. Catering Service 2.1 There is a wide range of catering facilities across the Parliamentary Estate. Details of menus, dietary information, access arrangements and opening times are available on the Catering Service Intranet pages: Catering Services 2.2 For further information, call the Catering Service Managing Director’s Office on ext. 3686. 2.3 Members of Parliament and House of Commons staff are entitled to host private functions. For further details contact Catering Service Banqueting Office on ext. 4804, 2275 or 3677. 3. Sports and Social Facilities Westminster Gymnasium 3.1 The Westminster Gym, which is run by the Jubilee Hall Trust, is open to all Parliamentary staff. The facilities available include a 40-station gym, strength machines and free weights, exercise studio, indoor cycle studio and a range of classes. Physiotherapy, osteopath treatments, massage and acupuncture are also available for all Palace of Westminster pass holders. Prices are available from the Westminster Gym. 3.2 The Westminster Gym is situated in the basement of No 1 Canon Row, Derby Gate. 3.3 For further details on facilities offered and the cost of membership and other services, call ext.
  • Department of Health Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (Known As NHS England) 2013-14

    Department of Health Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (Known As NHS England) 2013-14

    Department of Health Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) 2013-14 July 2014 Department of Health Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) 2013-14 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 13U(6) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012) © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at NHS England, Quarry House, Quarry Hill, Leeds, LS2 7UE Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2902575 07/14 42164 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Department of Health – Annual Assessment of the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) 2013-14 1 National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended) – section 13U requirements in relation to the Annual Report of the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) for the financial year 2013/2014 This Act Paper sets out my first annual assessment of the National Health Service Commissioning Board’s performance, pursuant to section 13U(4) of the above Act, covering the 2013-14 financial year.