§ 22nd October 1991
§ Dear Michael
§ Bridge Street Phase 2
§ At its meeting last Tuesday the New Building Sub-Committee received a presentation from Mr. Michael Hopkins on his Preliminary Sketch Plan Report for Phase 2 of the new parliamentary building project. As the Sub-Committee will shortly cease to exist, and as there may be a lengthy interval before the new Accommodation Committee is set up, I thought it would be helpful if I wrote to inform you of the Sub-Committee's present views in regard to Phase 2.
§ In general the Sub-Committee is very pleased with the way the designs are shaping up. Last week we were shown elevations of the proposed building for the first time, and I think I speak for all my colleagues who were present in saying that these were very encouraging. We appreciate, of course, that Mr. Hopkins is still actively developing his views about the appearance of the building, and that it will not be until next Spring that the plans are finalised.
§ We approved the proposals for Members' offices contained in the PSP Report. In particular we are content with the proposal that about 104 "sets" should contain ensuite accommodation for Members' staff, while in a further 92 "sets" space will be shared with other Members' staff.
§ Mr. Hopkins's proposals for the internal layout of the building, especially on the. ground and first floors, are still being developed. We regard the proposals to roof in either the inner courtyard (at second floor level), or the outer space formed between Phase 2 and Norman Shaw South, as interesting, and we certainly think Mr. Hopkins should further investigate each possibility in order to establish its pros and cons. We are sure that he will bear in mind the importance of ensuring, if at all possible, that the minimum allocations of space for specific functions as set out in the Services Committee's Initial Brief are adhered to in whatever emerges as his favoured layout.
§ We approved Mr. Hopkin's new proposals to carry the load of the building on its perimeter walls and on six columns extending downward to the base of the station, rather than on a horizontal concrete "raft". We think it essential, however, that whatever means are chosen to separate the parliamentary building from the London underground station below it, the 229W highest priority must be given to ensuring that noise and vibration from the trains do not disturb Members and staff in their offices.
§ Mr. Hopkins reported to us on the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the siting of ventilation shafts. This is a matter which will clearly have to be looked at in detail by our successors, but we wish to put on record our concern at the proposed introduction of such shafts within the parliamentary estate. The aesthetic and other disadvantages that might arise from such a proposal will need to be carefully evaluated.
§ Finally, we note that a number of issues remain to be resolved in discussions with London Underground. Our successors will need to satisfy themselves that suitable arrangements have been made with regard to the location of the temporary ticket hall, achieving an early start to the construction of the parliamentary building, shared use of the site during the construction period, future ownership of the land, and provisions to insulate the parliamentary building from noise and vibration. It will also be important to receive confirmation from London Underground that the construction timetable they have previously outlined in evidence to the Service Committee is still operative.
§ We understand that London Underground propose shortly to introduce a further private bill dealing with the Jubilee Line. Our successors may well wish to enquire into any proposals in this bill which directly impinge on the parliamentary estate, and to report to the House on them before the bill is given a second reading. This would be a similar procedure to that which the Services Committee adopted with regard to the original Jubilee line bill in Session 1989–90.
§ Subject to progress in resolving these issues, and to the satisfactory passage of the London Underground Bill through Parliament, we see no reason why the target of Spring 1992 for the commencement of work on site should not be achieved. We wish to put on record our thanks to Mr. Hopkins, and to his junior colleague Mr. John Pringle, for all the work they have done and for the constructive and creative way in which they have sought to interpret their necessarily complex brief.
§ 15 December 1991
§ Dear Ray,
§ NEW PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING
§ Thank you for your letter of 22 October recording the outcome of the New Building Sub Committee's consideration of Michael Hopkins and Partners proposals for the next phase of the New Parliamentary Building. Before dealing with the issues you raise may I congratulate you first on becoming Chairman of the new Accommodation and Works Committee. I am sure it is very important to the development of the proposals for the new building that there should be this continuity with the depth of knowledge it brings to the scheme.
§ I had the opportunity last week to visit Hopkins' office to see their proposals. He has done considerable work since the presentation to the Sub Committee and it is quite clear that there are the makings of a fine scheme. The massing, scale and silhouette of the building are now becoming much clearer and will, I think, contribute greatly to the important views across the River Thames as well as the more oblique views from Parliament Square. The choice of materials is of great importance. There is a very difficult balance to be struck between the red brick of the Norman Shaw buildings and the lighter brown stone used on the Palace. I know from our discussions that Michael Hopkins is very conscious of this point.
§ It is, I believe, essentially a matter for the House to determine the priorities for the use of the accommodation which can be provided in the building. I note that your Sub Committee was content with the proposals for Members' offices and I think you will find that the most recent work to develop the proposals for the ground and first floors will not only result in an exciting space but will assist considerably in increasing the amount of accommodation available without in any way overdeveloping the site.
§ It is quite clear, both from your letter and the reports I have received, that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done to integrate successfully the proposed extension to the Jubilee Line with the new building. I consider it very important therefore that the discussions involving my 230W officials, London Underground and the House should be pursued rigorously to try to achieve the timetable you set out so that all the necessary information is made available to enable the House to take an early view on the impact of the proposed Extension and to reach agreement on the way ahead without delaying unnecessarily the new building.
§ I shall be keeping in touch as the design continues to develop and look forward to seeing a fully worked up scheme early in the New Year.
§ Yours faithfully,
§ MICHAEL HESELTINE