The Laneham letter 1st dig - lead found, could be pipe November 2005 meeting Concerns are raised about the reliance of the letter (was Laneham sober?) and the lack of evidence about the garden 2nd dig - possible evidence of the fountain but no trace of arbour, aviary, path, obelisk or statue Decision taken that combination of the letter and the physical evidence that they have gathered is sufficient to proceed August 2007 Budget pushed up to £2m but contractor estimates higher Anna brings in David Honour who believes that the buildings would have been made of wood not stone - which would be more accurate and cheaper - £350k saved (alarm bell - did they take any structural advise on this?) The fountain - only evidence is from laneham Ball or Bowl? Decision for bowl made based on how it looked best in a visual comparison. October 2007 Builder goes bust 4 weeks pass and they find a builder that can start next week January 2008 Contractors on site Garden, aviary and arbour to be ready by summer Fountain for the following year Building earth bank - steep slope and challenge of making grass grow Fish in pond - people trying to add in scope part way through project - project consultant rightly steps on it Issue with structure of wooden buildings - may tip over - raises question that when Dudley created the garden he didn’t have to contend with modern health and safety
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Laneham letter 1st dig - lead found, could be pipe November 2005 meetingConcerns are raised about the reliance of the letter (was Laneham sober?) and the lack of evidence about the garden 2nd dig - possible evidence of the fountain but no trace of arbour, aviary, path, obelisk or statue Decision taken that combination of the letter and the physical evidence that they have gathered is sufficient to proceed August 2007Budget pushed up to £2m but contractor estimates higher Anna brings in David Honour who believes that the buildings would have been made of wood not stone - which would be more accurate and cheaper - £350k saved (alarm bell - did they take any structural advise on this?) The fountain - only evidence is from lanehamBall or Bowl? Decision for bowl made based on how it looked best in a visual comparison. October 2007 Builder goes bust 4 weeks pass and they find a builder that can start next week January 2008Contractors on siteGarden, aviary and arbour to be ready by summerFountain for the following year Building earth bank - steep slope and challenge of making grass grow Fish in pond - people trying to add in scope part way through project - project consultant rightly steps on it Issue with structure of wooden buildings - may tip over - raises question that when Dudley created the garden he didn’t have to contend with modern health and safety Short delay with incorrect location of fountain on drawing May 2008 - awaiting new designs for Arbour and Aviary Chief exec questioning the plastic mesh on slope and the fact that the modern town can be seen from terrace Structural engineer decides that wooden structures need re-enforcing with stainless steelNow months behind schedule
June 2008Grass wont grow on slopePlants starting to go in CE not happy with joints on stone - should have built a section to see how it looked before building it all £3.5m stated as budget - when did this change from 2? July 2008Corrective action to try and round off 'weathering' to stonework Anna wont sign off on stonework - builder becoming frustrated August 2008Steel is approved but has this damaged the authenticStructural Engineer makes the point that no-one thought through the fact that original was a temporary vanity project that is now required to be a permanent structure - the original wouldn’t have lasted longContractual wrangle over who pays for steel - McCurdys want Builder ROK and EH to pay arguaing flaw in EH original designEH say that McCurdys are contracted to ROK so is nothing to do with them, ROK don’t want to pay either and McCurdy taking legal advice which advises that flaw lay in original design December 2008 - EH refusing to take on liability for designs, McCurdy waiting £70kJanuary 2009 - project still not complete No resolution to legal issuesProblems with alignment of pathsA year late garden is nearing completion, arguments roll on, but marble centrepiece is being installed. 1 year late, £1m over budget = 40% over budget + lost income from a year of visitors What went wrong?Specification not tight enough at the startChanges being introduced through the projectDiscussions going on about authenticity etc as project is ongoing which should have been specified at the beginning Specialists should have been consulted at the start - cost in making changes during the project much higher than spending the time during the initial planning and design Who was the project manager?
Dr. Simon Thurley - Chief Executive English Heritiage
Dr. Anna Keay - Properties Presentation Director
Roy Strong - Garden Historian
John Watkins - Head of Landscape and Gardens
Tim Reeve - properties director
David Honour - Designer
Nick Molyneux - Historic Buildings inspector
Steve Bax - Head of Visitor operations, Kenilworth castle
Vernon Clews-Jones - Contracts manager, ROK building
Tim Crawley - Fountain sculptor
Peter McCurdy - McCurdy and co. Building aviary and Arbur from English oak
Stephen Fletcher - project consultant
Lorraine Knowles - Visitor Operations Director
Richard Griffiths - Architect
Andrew Smith - structural engineer
Related Documents
