Fri 03 Sep 2010

- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Search by Date | What is Live!? | Got a Story? | Advertise on Live!

NOTICE: Due to a large amount of spam, a new CAPTCHA has been added to the discussion form. You will need to correctly fill in the two words shown in the image each time you submit a comment. Failure to do so may result in the loss of everything you have typed, so please don't forget this bit.

Live! - News

Union Masterplan in Trouble?

Jan 15 2006 17:02

Gerald the Vicious Amoeba

The union has gone to great lengths to publicise it?s masterplan, but is it in financial trouble already?

The union masterplan has attracted large amounts of interest and publicity due largely to the rough time the plan had last year with Union Council often feeling they were being left out of the decision making.

However, these traumas negotiated and the plan seems to be in more trouble, this time of a financial nature.

The union executive committee initially authorised expenditure of £150,000 for the architects brief and a further £40,000 when the original estimate was found to be too low for the works required. This report was presented to Union Council earlier in the year and covers design of stages C and D (Phase 1) of the project.

The cost of implementing phase 1 is estimated at £1.8m of which the college are currently donating £1.2m of which £0.5m is for works relating to the disabilities discrimination act. This would leave the union to pay £600k.

However, the union only has £600k in its reserves and is currently making a loss in the region of £50k a year thus this expenditure would leave the union heavily in debt within a year and thus the expenditure is not an expenditure that Exec is likely to authorise.

This leaves the masterplan in a position where it cannot proceed and have phase 1 complete by October unless extra funding can be begged of the college. One possible argument is that college are paying for the DDA work but the £0.5m they have contributed to this section of the works is less than the actual costs of the work which includes the installation of a lift that a wheelchair can actually fit in to.

A delay in starting would have the extra complication that it would mean that new energy efficiency standards will come into effect and thus costs will probably increase. Paying extra for greater efficiencies in energy use is of no benefit to the union as energy costs are currently met by the college. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future.

One possibility is that phase 1 be delayed whilst further funding is sought and that phase 1 and 2 be completed in a single block of work, this would reduce overall costs. It may also be considered to take into account future energy cost savings if the union is required to pay for its own energy use in the future.

Student Tom Tibbets has even offered to pay half of the cost of undertaking an energy review so that the new building will be inline with the future regulations. CGCU president Sid Singh described it as ?highly embarrassing? to ICU and that ?ICU should have looked at energy efficiency without being reminded by a student?.

Email this Article | Share on Facebook |

Print this Article

Discussion about “Union Masterplan in Trouble?”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.

1. Bob

Jan 15 2006 17:22

Does nayone know exactly whst phase 1 involves as I can't find any mention of it in the 117 pages of the masterplan.

2. tom t

Jan 15 2006 17:27

the irony being that the money college is so generously giving the Union for DDA works was in fact applied for and won by previous DPE&W from HEFCE, so College are currently unwilling to fund any of the Union building improvements, in spite of being one of the UK's top universities, and certainly one of the richer ones.

There is a ray of hope. Presuming the building remains delapidated until the centenary, a massive appeal between now and 2007, with effort put in to persuade centennial visitors to give generously to the project, could mean a complete, well planned refurb might start in 2008. A boon for any prospective student born after 1991.

3. Dan L

Jan 16 2006 21:17

Why should the college give more money? The money for DDA was to adopt the current lift (far cheaper than what is proposed), and make the changing rooms on level 2.5 (gym) DDA compliant, by moving them in with the level 2 ones.

We would all like Rolls-Royce's, but we have to be realistic and realise that a Rover is cheaper - and does the same job...

4. Gerald

Jan 16 2006 23:11

Is converting the current lift actually possible? Surely the shaft is only the size it is which in a building that age is probably determined by load bearing engineering brick walls?

Whether we want a Rover or a Rolls Royce we can't fit more in than space allows. Practical engineering and all that.

5. Ant

Jan 17 2006 09:15

The physical size of the lift shaft is of course pretty fixed, however from what i'm led to believe modern lift carriages are better engineered and so obviously less of the shaft area is wasted.

6. Dan L

Jan 17 2006 09:21

It was determined by Lift Engineers at the time of DDA grants that a compliant lift carriage would fit in the shaft - as Ant says due to better designs these days.

However the lift would not be vastly bigger (say 8-10 people) the major difference would be the wider door opening for wheelchairs.

Of course - it is far nicer to have a brand new big lift - but that costs lots of money....

7. Dan L

Jan 17 2006 09:23

Also Gerald, some of the union (like the lift shaft) is built from what appears to be some of the strongest material avilable to man!! - Have you tried drilling through some of the load bearing walls in the concert hall for example?

8. Sam

Jan 19 2006 10:02

The Union Building is made of Diamond? Wow, I wish I'd spent less time drinking there and more time chipping away at the wall...

9. Sameena, ICU Pres

Jan 19 2006 11:27

I thought I?d give some information regarding Energy Efficiency: The Architects in their earlier presentation did look into energy efficiency and in both the Architect's and Engineer's current reports energy efficiency aspects have been incorporated. However, not as much as we would?ve liked was included. Therefore, as mentioned to students who?ve emailed me and at the Executive committee meeting, which the CGCU President has mentioned, concerns were raised by a number of students to me and in response I investigated the details within the current proposals and have written a Felix column. I also had a productive meeting with College's Energy & Environmental manager on Friday to discuss this topic and the concerns raised. Resulting from that meeting, College will carry out an Energy audit of the proposed redevelopment and make recommendations, to be incorporated into the plans for the building.

As was also mentioned in the Executive Committee, where the paper by Tom Tibbets was presented, the gesture was appreciated, but taking money from an individual was not what we would want to do. Instead the College will be doing the audit for free.

As for being "reminded" by students - unless students raise issues, it?s difficult to know what the concerns are. If you email me I will reply, but as much as I endevour to give a prompt reply, due to the sheer number I get (on a variety of topics), this is not always possible.

10. Wibble

Jan 19 2006 12:28

I agree that unless studetns raise concerns the union cannot represent them. But energy efficiency is one topic that should not have needed student involvement to be raised. To try and complete the project ahead of new regulations gives the distinct impression of the union trying to do a cheap job and cut whatever corner it can rather than a proper job that will be to the benefit of all concerned, even if this means waiting an extra year to get the required funding and ensure that the planning is properly carried out.

11. Simon Rawson

Jan 19 2006 12:50

Outsiders view point:

"It seems to me that, since the ugly departure of the one person who was the real driving force behind the Strategic Review and Masterplan, things have started to stagnate."

Add your comment:

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Do This:
Anti-spam:	If you can see this, something is broken (either with your browser, or with our system). Please leave the box below empty, or your comment will be considered to be spam.