July 22 2021

The architects behind an approved mortuary serving northeast Scotland and the Northern Isles have revisited their scheme with a fresh application, after it was agreed to move the building slightly to avoid excessive groundworks and retention costs.

Led by NHS Grampian, Aberdeen City Council and the University of Aberdeen the Foresterhill integrated mortuary the revised scheme will be subject to a number of design variations, repositioning the building and reducing the width of a garage and collonade.

In a statement, Keppie wrote: "The previously consented application, ref 201200/DPP was granted 05 January 2021. The project went out to tender in late November 2020 and following tender returns, a design review was undertaken with the outcome being several design variations.

"The project is currently awaiting project board approval, expected in August 2021."

Other minor changes include the substitution of bespoke concrete panels with feature brickwork and a change from a pitched roof to a flat design for an external garage.

This will minimise the need for retaining walls, reduce level differences and allow the rooftop plant to be relocated.  

9 Comments

#1 Posted by modernish on 22 Jul 2021 at 14:47 PM

What?...."after determining that the new building footprint extended beyond the existing site boundary"....so in other words the building didn't fit on the site and no one noticed until a contractor pointed out the client didn't own the land they were proposing to build on!
You'd think with the, no doubt, amount of people attending innumerable project meetings someone would have thought to ask, or thought to check.

#2 Posted by MV on 23 Jul 2021 at 09:44 AM

I'm betting the client thought they owned it. The Architect can only go with the information that is passed to them.

This is a really nice looking scheme.

#3 Posted by Fact Hunt on 23 Jul 2021 at 10:43 AM

@#1
Usual UR commentor, shooting from the hip without knowing the facts

#4 Posted by modernish on 23 Jul 2021 at 13:18 PM

@#3 - The 'facts' on the planning seem pretty clear. An addendum document lists all the points that have changed. principally 'value engineering' (read dumbing down) and an amendment to the site boundary. The boundary changes looks driven by the fact the boundary condition couldn't be created without encroaching outside the redline boundary.
Of course, if you know better then do tell.

#5 Posted by modernish on 23 Jul 2021 at 13:21 PM

@#2 - the client must indeed 'own' it, as the boundary has been changed to include it. However, the architects worked to the boundary given...right up to the boundary given. But the level on the boundary look unachievable without encroaching outside the site boundary.
Either way it's a fundamental error that could easily have been avoided and therefore saved the good and gracious public a few quid amending the scheme.

#6 Posted by Van Man on 24 Jul 2021 at 00:57 AM

I have heard of similar things happening when people think they have owned land for decades only for it to be discovered many years later that the correct paperwork wasn't filed and they didn't actually own the land.

#7 Posted by Cadmonkey on 26 Jul 2021 at 09:48 AM

Architects should always ask to see the red line deed plan - and work to that.
There is no reason the client can’t provide it from the outset.

#8 Posted by Gary on 26 Jul 2021 at 10:07 AM

Looks like Keppie forgot to tell the trainee what the red line boundary is ... a proposed scheme that will not age well ... and will look like a council building of the past in the not so distant future !

#9 Posted by Urban Realm on 27 Jul 2021 at 15:22 PM

To clarify, the building footprint was adjusted to avoid excessive groundworks and retention costs. Not because of any mix up in the original boundary line.

Apologies for any confusion.

Statement from Keppie:
The original planning permission was obtained on the basis of the original boundary line.

During design development and market testing it was agreed to move the building slightly to avoid excessive groundworks and retention costs.

As the reposition of the building also required an adjustment to the redline boundary it was confirmed that a new planning application was also required.

Post your comments