St Peters Feasibility Study 2015

The Church of St Peter
Bournemouth
Appeal
Feasibility Study
Revised July 2015
ST.ANN’S GATE ARCHITECTS
The Close · Salisbury · Wiltshire · SP1 2EB
principals: Michael Drury RIBA GradDiplConsAA AABC
Antony Feltham-King RIBA GradDiplConsAA AABC
partners: Louise Rendell RIBA DipConsHistEnvRICS
Helen Martin BAHons DiplArch MScCons AABC
St.Ann’s Gate Architects Limited Liability Partnership · reg. no: OC344334 · VAT: GB 188 085 427
t: 01722 555200 e: admin@stannsgate.com f: 01722 555201 w: www.stannsgate.com

St Peter’s Bournemouth/Appeal/Revised Feasibility Study
St Ann’s Gate Architects LLP/July 2015 2
St Peter’s, Bournemouth Revised July 2015
Appeal
Feasibility Study
Contents
Phase 1
1.1.0 Introduction
1.2.0 The Organ
1.3.0 Wallpainting Conservation
1.4.0 Fabric Repairs
1.5.0 Lighting and Sound Installations
1.6.0 Heating
1.7.0 Seating
1.8.0 Café
1.9.0 The Resurrection Chapel
Phase 2
2.1.0 North Side Development
Cost Summary
3.1.0 Cost Summary
Appendices
A Statement of Need
Rev Dr Ian Terry
B 1. Restoration of the Organ of St Peter’s Church, Bournemouth, 17 Sept 2012,
Sam Hanson, Director Music
2. Initial Advice on an Organ Restoration, 27 February 2013
Ian Bell, Organ Consultant
3. Updated costs from Harrison & Harrison, 26 February 2015
C The Wallpaintings in the Nave, Detailed Condition Report, February 2013,
Revised June 2015, Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator
D Lighting and Sound Systems Report, February 2013
Revised June 2015, Paul Covell, Lighting Designer
E Heating Study, 25 February 2013
Revised June 2015, Chris Reading, Heating Consultant
F Community Café Outline Business Case, New Way UK Consultants Ltd, June 2014
G Feasibility Study for North Side Development, 2008

1.1.0 Introduction
1.1.1 Background to the Revised Feasibility Study
The church's statement of needs (appendix A) provides the brief for the appeal, to which
this feasibility study responds. This brief developed following initial discussions with the
architect in June 2012 and has developed further since the earlier version of this feasibility
study, issued in March 2013. This reflects an increasing understanding on the part of the
church community concerning the needs and priorities of the church and the wider
community. This revised feasibility study evaluates each element within that brief,
assessing the implications on the church fabric, the likely benefit and the order of cost.
1.1.2 A Two Phase Project
A fundamental change to the brief since March 2013 concerns the role of St Peter’s within
the wider community. At the heart of the town, the church has been developing partner-
ships for the common good over the last two years and as a result the appeal project has
become increasingly mission-driven. The launch of a major appeal is a critical moment and
St Peter’s is now adamant that it should not look back in future and regret not having
embraced a bigger, more imaginative vision. Therefore, although the first priority must be
the conservation of the existing building, the church also aspires to an imaginative second
phase development that will greatly enhance its mission potential. Shown below, this
phase would provide new facilities on the street front to the north, envisaged as a heritage
centre for word and music. The potential for concerts and performance within the church
will also be realized by the provision of meeting rooms and associated facilities. Although
still at an early stage and subject to further discussions with the relevant authorities, this
revised feasibility plan thus indicates the 'bigger picture' as a second phase of the appeal.

1.1.3 History and Development
The church stands at the western end of a large, mainly wooded churchyard. St Peters
Road lies to the north with the town centre immediately beyond and to the west. The
church is listed Grade 1 and was designed by the eminent Victorian architect George
Edmund Street, famous for the Law Courts in London. Built in stages between 1856 and
1879, it retained only the south aisle of the slightly earlier church. When finished the new
building provided a nave and chancel with aisles to either side of both, pairs of eastern and
western transepts and a south porch, the west tower and spire being the last parts to be
completed. A range of vestry buildings by Sir T.G.Jackson came later, standing to the north
of the chancel with crypt space beneath. The Resurrection Chapel was built in the
churchyard in 1925-6 as a war memorial to designs by Sir Ninian Comper.
All the buildings are similarly constructed in Purbeck walling stone between Bath dressings,
the church and vestries having slate roofs.
The church from the south. The Resurrection Chapel is the small flat-roofed building to the south of the
eastern transept. The churchyard extends further to the east.

1.1.4 Appeal Content
Priorities identified within the appeal address a range of issues:
• The need for a complete overhaul has led to the consideration of other proposals, up
to and including a rebuild with significant changes to the instrument and its
specification. An intermediate option has been adopted which incorporates some
augmentation of the instrument in conjunction with the major overhaul. The organ pit
may need attention as standing water has been observed here over the years.
Remedial work might best be undertaken when the instrument is out of commission.
• Other fabric matters arise from the architect’s 2015 quinquennial inspection or before,
the condition of masonry in the clerestories having been a known problem since 2007.
Wallpainting conservation in the nave has been discussed for a similar length of time,
this and the re-lighting of the church both being economically associated with the
scaffold erected for the clerestory repairs.
• Increased comfort levels within the church have been identified if the potential of the
church as a community asset is to be realized. Movable seating will increase the
flexibility of the church for a more varied pattern of use and good heating is of
paramount importance. Future use will include a café at the back of the church and
this should be in operation later this year.
• A viable future for the Resurrection Chapel must be ensured and additional facilities
are being incorporated in conjunction with essential repairs, presently in hand.
• Finally, a second phase of the appeal would deliver a north side extension, envisaged
as a heritage centre for word and music. The potential for concerts and performance
will also be realized by the provision of meeting rooms and associated facilities.
The interior looking east (Photo from Pitkin Church Guide).

1.2.0 The Organ
1.2.1 Background
The Willis organ of 1871 was incorporated in the present Harrison organ in 1913. A major
overhaul was carried out in 1975. The instrument has been regularly maintained since but
now needs further attention as indicated below.
1.2.2 The Proposal
In Sept 2012 the Director of Music identified four alternative proposals, each one more
major in scope than the last (see appendix B1). Recent instructions from the church
indicate a preference for Option 4, namely to rebuild the organ as a four-manual organ,
including a new console and a complete overhaul of the inner workings of the instrument,
including:
• The opening/closing action of the Swell box;
• An assessment of the water problem on the organ chamber floor.
Changes to the specification of the instrument, as follows:
• Making the two-stage Swell Mixture a proper feature of the organ.
• Adding a 4’ flute to the Swell.
• Adding Great chorus reeds, and moving the existing Great Reeds to the Choir.
• Addressing the Great Mixture situation.
• Revoicing the Great Tierce.
• Reinstating the 8’ top octave of the Choir Cor Anglais and assessing its revoicing
potential regarding its audibility in the building (taking historic considerations into
account).
• Revoicing the Choir Orchestral Oboe.
• Reconsidering the specification of the Choir Acuta.
• Adding a Pedal 32’ flue stop.
• Adding a Pedal mezzo-forte trumpet-tone 16’ reed (possibly derived from the Great
Reeds).
• Reassessing the scale of the 32’ Bombardon bottom octave to match more closely
with the 16’ Ophicleide.
1.2.3 Feasibility
The organ consultant has responded to this brief and has discussed the project with
Harrison and Harrison, organ builders. His preliminary advice on the proposed work,
budget cost and programme, dated 27 Feb 2013 appears at appendix B2 and updated costs
from Harrison & Harrison, dated 26 February 2015 appear at appendix B3.
1.2.4 Work Relating to the Organ Pit
The architect’s 2015 Quinquennial Inspection Report, paragraph C94 reads:
The pit below the organ goes down to basement level, adjacent to the blower room
described at C97 below. The lowest levels are prone to dampness as the water table is high.
When inspected with the organ consultant on 23 Jan 2013 there were a few inches of water
in the bottom but there was only a trace of dampness on the concrete floor at the time of
the present inspection. The pit drains naturally but water staining patterns suggest that
levels may rise to about 150mm as a maximum. Salts powdering on the plaster elsewhere
and associated streaking down the wall from the roof appear to be historic. The space is
well ventilated and the Director of Music informed the architect at the time of the
inspection that the organ builder was not unduly worried but further monitoring should

continue and a detailed survey at low level will be necessary to finally assess implications
fully. The situation could then be addressed in conjunction with the proposed overhaul and
augmentation of the organ as access is difficult and any remedial work required in the pit is
best undertaken when the instrument is out of commission.
1.2.5 Costs and Programme Implications for Works to the Organ
Ian Bell, the organ consultant reports in preliminary advice, dated 27 Feb 2013 as follows:
I am very wary of predicting cost given the joint hazards of (a) the unpredictability of organ
builders tenders — which can, and do, frequently vary by as much as 300% for ostensibly
comparable work; and (b) the equally unpredictable effect that the current economic
climate has on some of the costings of some builders, but not others. Furthermore our hope
is to step a little beyond simple like-with-like refurbishment. Accepting that that hope may
be dashed, we should nonetheless have the information to hand before abandoning that
aspect; and budgetary figures based on the least bold option tend to become set in stone,
or at least in people’s expectations. That said, I would be surprised if a thorough
refurbishment undertaken to this standard comes in much below around £500,000 before
VAT, and would suggest pencilling something closer to £650,000. Figures from this firm are
usually inclusive of subsistence and fares for site work, but not freight charges to and from
their workshops in Durham. They are subject to annual inflationary increases in direct
proportion to nationally negotiated wage increases (usually close to RPI) regardless of
whether or not a contract has been signed or an indication of intent offered.
Subsequent cost estimates from Harrison &
Harrison, the favoured organ builders indicate a
net cost at 26 February 2015 of £594,216 for
Option 4. This is less than the consultant’s
estimate of £650,000 but allowance must be
made for consultant’s fees (say 5%) and VAT,
bringing the likely gross figure to about 750,000.
Work within the organ pit may also be necessary.
A budget of £800,000 is suggested.
Timescale: Ian Bell advises that regardless of
undertakings that may be made in good faith,
organ builders will never confirm dates until a
contract has been signed, and even then will
vigorously maintain the principle that ‘time shall
not be of the essence’. Waiting lists from the
moment of contract signing are typically about
two years. Thereafter the work might be
expected to be achieved within perhaps nine or
ten months.
The Comper organ case design

1.2.6 The Organ Console and Case
The remote console is movable and is usually located in the easternmost bay of the south
nave arcade. Its replacement is included in the favoured Option 4. An organ case was
designed by Ninian Comper in 1913. It was never built and current proposals make no
allowance for its provision. It would be a worthy addition to the proposed work and
although it is understood that costs will not be included in the appeal total, the case design
is reproduced above, should a specific benefactor be identified.
1.3.0 Wallpainting Conservation
1.3.1 Summary
Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator offers a summary in his report dated Feb 2013
(see Appendix C) indicating that the wall paintings in the nave are by Clayton & Bell and
those in the choir and sanctuary by Powell and Sons to designs by G F Bodley. They date
collectively from a period between 1873 and 1889. The decorations in the Keble Chapel
were by Heaton, Butler and Bayne from 1905. Peter Martindale’s report describes the wall
paintings and their condition. It also explains what can be done to conserve the paintings
and to improve their visual appearance for the benefit of this and future generations. The
most serious concern at present is on-going deterioration to the wall paintings at the east
end of the Sanctuary, south side, to the vaulting and to the adjoining lancet window. The
wall painting above the chancel arch on the east wall of the nave is interesting in its
technique; historical reference notes that the pigments are bound with gelatine and that
they were applied to damp plaster. All other areas of painting are bound with a drying oil.
1.3.2 Background to Wallpainting Conservation in St Peter’s
Detail showing current condition above chancel arch
The decorations in the Keble Chapel were conserved in 1995. Minor areas on the sanctuary
walls have also been treated previously, possibly at the same time. The Clayton and Bell
decorations in the nave, shown on p.5 were inspected by another conservator in 2008 but
a subsequent grant application was unsuccessful. The opportunity to undertake this work
should be re-considered in conjunction with re-lighting and repairs to the clerestory
windows (see sections 4.01 and 5.02, etc below). Grant applications might be considered.

1.3.3 Recommendations (from Peter Martindale, Wallpainting Conservator – see Appendix C)
1.3.3.1 Structural work to the wall paintings
1.3.3.2 Nave east wall, the chancel arch
Deterioration of the painted decoration is historic so conservation of the structural
elements of the wall painting could be commissioned. This would include the following:
a) Consolidate areas of severely deteriorated plaster (apex of chancel arch as shown on
previous page).
b) Consolidate areas of damaged plaster, fill losses and tone to match surroundings.
c) Fill cracks in the plaster, and tone the repairs to match their surroundings.
1.3.3.3 The Nave, north and south arcades
The small losses in the paint layer at the extreme west end of the arcades should be
filled and retouched to match their surroundings.
1.3.3.4 The Choir
No identified structural work required.
1.3.3.5 The Sanctuary
Deterioration to the painted decoration at the
east end on the south side of the chancel is almost
certainly on-going. This includes the vaulting, wall
and window cill and reveal. Repairs to the external
leadwork in 2012 would appear to have stopped
liquid moisture ingression from the roof but it is
not known whether liquid moisture is able to
penetrate in any other ways into this area. A close
examination of the external building fabric is
recommended. When deterioration mechanisms
have ceased operating areas of paint flaking can
be secured, and areas of paint loss retouched.
Damage to underlying fabric can too be repaired.
The condition of the building fabric around the
north lancet window in the chancel should also be
examined in detail to establish whether there is Damaged decorations in the SE corner.
water ingress here also.
1.3.3.6 Cleaning the wall paintings
All the wall paintings can be cleaned, and a good result can be achieved if cleaning is
taken to the safe upper limit. It may be possible to achieve an acceptable ‘lift’ to the
appearance by employing a less intensive approach, but whether this is cost effective
once scaffold access is taken into account needs to be considered. Of the four areas
considered here the wall paintings on the nave arcades are likely to be the least costly
per unit area to clean, closely followed by the wall painting on the east wall of the nave.
Wall paintings and polychrome wood in the choir and chancel will be more time
consuming to clean because a two stage process is required.
1.3.3.7 Programme consideration
Suggestions concerning the timing of future works are also made in Peter Martindale’s
report. Essentially, the condition of the painted surfaces in the sanctuary must be stable
before conservation work is undertaken but the recommended work in the nave and
elsewhere could be undertaken as soon as access and funding are available.

1. The painted decorations over the chancel arch
2. The south nave arcade.

1.3.4 Costs for Wallpainting Conservation
Peter Martindale suggested costs for wallpainting conservation in Feb 2013 and advised
further in June 2015. His estimates appear below. They do not include VAT. Scaffolding
costs are included elsewhere (see 4.06 for repairs to masonry in the clerestories).
Cleaning in the Sanctuary and choir will involve the use of solvents, as a result air
extraction will be required for the safety of those undertaking the cleaning and
those worshipping and visiting the church during the programme of work. It is
possible that some extraction may be also be needed for work to the nave arcades.
Careful thought will be required regarding access (scaffolding) and protective
measures to avoid accidental damage to the fixtures and furnishings in the church.
Conservation and cleaning East wall nave (chancel arch) £14,527.00
Conservation and cleaning Nave arcades (north and south) £15,904.00
Conservation and cleaning Choir (timber ceiling and walls) £41,725.00
Conservation and cleaning Sanctuary (vaulting and walls) £55,847.00
Conservation and cleaning Stonework associated with clerestory £4,959.00
Conservation and cleaning Cusped versica carvings (N & S walls) £1,498.00
Documentation Final conservation report £2,015.00
Management of project £844.00
Overall figure to allow for (ex VAT) £137,319.00
It would be possible to refine these figures by undertaking some timed cleaning
trials on the wall paintings, in particular those in the Sanctuary and choir where
cleaning comprises a two stage operation. Allow up to £790.00 for cleaning trials
and allied brief documentation, this figure is exclusive of VAT and access.
Peter Martindale’s costs do not include contingencies or professional fees. An
allowance must be made for health and safety under CDM regulations but architect’s
fees would only be charged on contract administration, provided wallpainting
conservation was undertaken in conjunction with repairs to re-lighting, glazing and
stonemasonry in the nave clerestories. VAT may be recoverable via the Listed Places of
Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if it is available when the work is carried out. To
include provisional allowances of £790 for cleaning trials, 10% contingencies, 5% for
professional fees and 20% VAT would result in a Gross Budget Cost of £191,419.06,
say £191,500.

1.4.0 Fabric Repairs and Conservation
A quinquennial inspection was carried out in April 2015. The report prioritises remedial
work that should be addressed, the most important ones being summarized in the
paragraphs that follow. The tabulated summary of the report itself appears at 1.4.5 below,
indicating other issues that should be included in the repair programme before 2015.
1.4.1 Clerestory Repairs
A substantial section of hard cementitious repair mortar fell from the fourth bay of the
south nave clerestory in November 2007, landing among the pews below. Fortunately they
were not occupied. An inspection from a cherry picker revealed similar failed repairs that
were potentially dangerous. Loose material was removed by a mason in conjunction with
the inspection, for safety. The hard mortar repairs had failed due to incompatibility
between the hard cementitious mortar and the softer stone dressings behind. Substantial
loose sections of hard mortar were prised away elsewhere in the south clerestory but
further work was recommended as a priority to ensure the safety of those below.
Loose masonry removed in 2007. The largest piece Loose masonry about to fall, removed using the
rests on the bucket rim and was about 150mm long. cherry picker in 2007.
Estimates were obtained for repairs to the south clerestory in 2008 and these are yet to be
carried out. If scaffolding is to be erected for the conservation of the wallpaintings in the
nave, it would be economic to use it for repairs to the clerestory also, the programme
being extended to include the north side too, as necessary. The 2008 estimates were
updated by the contractor in 2013 and again by the architect in 2015 to allow for inflation.
Total costs for the work internally have been extrapolated to include the north side which
is in better condition but ought to be dealt with when scaffold is available for wallpainting
conservation. Figures appear at 1.4.6 below. Stonework on the south clerestory can be
inspected externally when scaffold is erected for the replacement of plastic rainwater
goods (see 1.3.2 below) and a provisional sum has been included for remedial stonework
outside. As there will be no external scaffold on the north side, masonry repairs will be
limited accordingly.

1.4.2 Replace Upvc Rainwater Goods
The original rainwater goods were replaced in plastic in 1967. Short-lived materials, they
are unsympathetic to this fine church. Those on the north side were replaced with powder
coated, cast aluminium in 2008 when scaffold was in place for stone cleaning. The
rainwater goods on the south side of the chancel are prone to blockages and all those on
the south side should be replaced to match the north, as should those elsewhere.
Plastic rainwater goods on the south side. North side, rainwater goods replaced in black, powder
coated aluminium in 2008.
1.4.3 The Tower and Spire
The tower and spire have been inspected and
maintained by stone conservators with specialist
rope acccess skills in recent years, following a major
repair campaign in 1982. Among current concerns
are the Bath stone dressings to the windows in the
lantern at the top of the turret stair to the tower
which are failing in the acute marine environment.
Repairs were recommended in the 2015 QI report as
follows: The window dressings, mullions, transoms
and tracery of the lantern stage … are in poor order.
The mullions in the easternmost light have lost
surface and the tracery trees to the south-east have
eroded and are powdering back rapidly. The leads to
the lights are thin and the glass rattles in places. The
ferramenta is corroding and breaking the stone
jambs, significant damage having been caused since
2005. There is localised disruption and exfoliation to
the stonework elsewhere within this area and rain Decaying masonry internally.
streaking on the inner face of the newel stair below.
The pintle, carrying the door to the parapet gutter has
corroded, fracturing the stone jamb.

Decayed stonework in the lantern at the head of the tower stair. Stone damaged by corroding saddle bar.
Scaffold costs to access the stair top would make external stonework replacement hard to
justify economically. The rope access conservators who have worked on the tower and
spire in recent years and have given a budget estimate for mortar repairs to the stone
dressings to the lantern lighting the top of the stair externally and internally. Although such
repairs are less durable than stone replacement, it might be economical to proceed
accordingly, leaving more permanent repairs until scaffold is necessary at this level for
other more wide-ranging work. The budget price from the rope access conservators (see
1.4.6 below) includes for lowering the 21 small leaded lights to the ground safely but not
for re-leading which is included in the budget price from the specialist glazier in 1.4.4
below. Reinstallation of the leaded lights can again be done by rope access and is included
in their budget, as are internal repairs to the lantern which are relatively straightforward.
1.4.4 Glazing
A report by a specialist glazier in
2013 suggested that the glazing to
the south nave clerestory should
receive attention when scaffold is
available. Masonry repairs are
required externally in the clerestory
also. If the leaded lights are 130
years old it might be foolish not to
re-lead them when scaffolding is
available externally for the
replacement rainwater goods.
Although the glazing on the north
side is of similar age and internal
scaffold will be available for wall Dormer window lighting the vestry corridor.
painting will not be available conservation, scaffold externally so as this is a more sheltered
side, no allowance has been made for re-leading. The 21 small lights in the lantern stage at
the top of the tower stair turret are included in the budget prices from a specialist glazier
who has visited the church to inspect the glazing as best he can from the ground. Glazing to
the dormer window lighting the vestry corridor must be re-leaded.

1.4.5 Other Quinquennial Repairs
The 2015 quinquennial inspection report lists other remedial work that should be
addressed before 2015 and suggests other items that might be worthy of consideration.
Some are already covered under the headings above but the remaining issues should also
be resolved in conjunction with the appeal. The biggest single consideration might be the
redecoration of the church internally, for which there are no current estimates. It is
suggested that an allowance must be made for this.
Although the roof over the parish office was replaced in slate in 2012 following lead theft,
the polyester felt used to form replacement parapet gutters is not a durable material. It
will fail within the life of the new slate coverings used elsewhere and will have to be
replaced in due course. In the meantime the roof covering and the face of the dormer
window lighting the vestry corridor must be replaced in lead or an alternative durable
material in conjunction with glazing work to the leaded lights and maintenance work to the
iron casement. See summary below and the full QI report for more details.

D SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2015 QI REPORT
The cost of items NOT covered elsewhere in this feasibility study is estimated in the right hand column.
Description Para Cost £
1. FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
Remove bedding material on Sacristy roof C19 DIY
Maintain rainwater goods C27,33 250
Investigate damp in corner of basement lounge C99. 500
Clear vegetation, blocked gutters & gullies C16,33,34,38,42,67,81,99 250
Inspect and make good roofing C11,25,28,34-6,38-40,43-4,46-7 55,127. 750
Clear bird muck from spire, secure against bird entry C82 500
Undertake further inspections elsewhere 58,64,70-1,75,79,83,94,103,107, 112 3,750
Undertake asbestos audit, assess health & safety
1
A9, C27,47,98,124 1,250
Clear vent in song room ceiling C90
2. REQUIRES ATTENTION WITHIN THE QUINQUENNIUM
Replace upvc guttering 13,16,18,23-4,27,30,44, 47 see elsewhere
Masonry cleaning, conservation and repair
2
22,57,60-3,66-9,75,80,81,84-
86,103,105,107,110,121-2
11,000
Repair/replace leadwork
3
C44, 52, 54 1,650
Glazing 52,79,81-4,88,90,93,95,103. see elsewhere
Electrical work arising from inspection
4
See A5 & C117. C87 see elsewhere
Wall painting conservation C88,103,104,107 see elsewhere
Plastered surfaces C99,105,106,111 5,500
Make good floor, grille channels, etc C96, 105, 108, 112 2,750
Secure Gate C81 150
Maintain external doors and ironwork C62, 65, 79 1,650
Works to the organ and organ pit C94,116 see elsewhere
Repairs to south clerestory C107 see elsewhere
Timber repair and treatment C109 2,750
Repair churchyard walls C126 - C128 2,750
3. REQUIRES ATTENTION WITHIN TEN YEARS
Undertake more re-slating if necessary C11 Not included
Replace boilers, perhaps earlier C100, 119 16,500
4. TO BE KEPT UNDER OBSERVATION No cost
implicationsShort lived roofing materials C19,51,54
Roof condition generally C11
Nave roof, tower abutment C27,36
Porch guttering C33
South aisle: top abutment C28
Water penetration through SE transept C64, 65, 104
Water level in organ pit C94
Dampness in basement lounge, boiler room, etc C99,100,101,119,
Trip hazards C105, 108, etc
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Maintain clock C89 550
Redecoration C102, 105, 106, 112, 111, 113 55,000
Improve lighting C118 see elsewhere
Churchyard
5
C123, 124, 129 0
Upgrade music room lavatory & cleaners room C91 3,000
1
Includes allowance for tower inspection by rope access conservators and a spire inspection also, inside and out.
2
Includes £5,500 allowance for stone repairs externally to south nave clerestory; scaffold provided for other works.
3
Includes for lead (or similar durable material) cladding to vestry dormer roof and window face.
4
Electrical test and report unseen.
5
Assumed to be local authority’s responsibility.

1.4.6 Fabric Repair Costs
Costs in the tabulation above are very approximate, based on the architect’s experiences
elsewhere, all as of July 2015. Inflationary indices should be allowed to accommodate the
likely time lapse prior to work commencing. Costs include 10% contingency and an
allowance for professional fees (totaling 13%) to cover architect and principal designer
under CDM 2015 regulations. No other consultancy fees are allowed, ie QS so additional
allowances must be made should further consultancy appointments be deemed
necessary. VAT will be applicable at 20% on the total and is included in the final total at
1.4.6.6 below but not under the itemised cost headings. VAT may be recoverable.
1.4.6.1 Clerestory Repairs
Updated costs were obtained in 2013 from the contractor who priced the
south clerestory in 2008. These have been increased by 10% to allow for
the increased costs currently being experienced in the building industry
and a provisional sum has been allowed for stone repairs externally on
the south side. Costs have been extrapolated to include the north side
internally but not externally. Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs: £85,000
1.4.6.2 Replace Upvc Rainwater Goods
Updated costs were obtained from the contractor who undertook the
replacement of uPVC rainwater goods on the north side in 2008. These
have been increased by 10% to allow for the increased costs currently
being experienced in the building industry. Additional costs have been
allowed on a pro-rata basis for rainwater goods to the eastern arm of
the church and the vestry building. Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs: £37,500
1.4.6.3 Tower Turret Windows
Budget costs for rope access conservation work were provided in 2013
by specialists who have worked on the spire and tower previously.
Gross cost, uplifted to include inflation, etc as described above: £22,000
n.b. glazing costs are included in 1.4.6.4 below.
1.4.6.4 Glazing
Budget costs were obtained from a specialist glazier in 2013 to include
re-leading the clerestories, the lantern at the top of the tower stair and
the dormer over the vestry passage. An additional allowance of £10,000
has been made for further glazing work, the architect being concerned
that other leaded-light glazing may be of considerable age.
Gross cost, uplifted to include on-costs as described in 4.06 above: £44,000
1.4.6.5 Other Quinquennial Repairs
Approximate costs have been estimated against recommendations
in the 2015 quinquennial report, as indicated in the summary on the
previous page. Gross budget cost, uplifted as described above: £110,500
1.4.6.6 Total Fabric Repair Costs: £299,000 say £300,000
Gross budget cost to include 20% VAT, potentially recoverable
under the LPWG scheme if still available when work is undertaken: £360,000

1.5.0 Lighting and Sound Installations
1.5.1 New lighting and sound systems
Scaffold for clerestory window repairs and wallpainting conservation would also be
available for the installation of new lighting and sound schemes, etc. Paul Covell has
revised his 2013 proposals to take into account improvements in LED light fittings and
increased costs over the last two years. His report appears at appendix D and extracts
appear below to summarise his conclusions.
1.5.2 Lighting Proposals (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)
One of the most economic ways to light a church is to use adjustable spotlights fitted
with LV (low voltage) TH (tungsten halogen) lamps with built in reflectors. Whilst these
are less efficient and have a shorter average life than discharge lamps such as metal
halide, they provide instant illumination, are dimmable, and have a much lower capital
cost. Older versions of these were rated at 100W with a life expectancy of 2,000 hours
and an initial light output of 2,200 lumens. However, with almost the same light output,
the most powerful “ECO” versions now available are rated at 60/65W and have an
average lamp life of around 4,000 hours.
Although they take a few minutes to reach their full output, and cannot be dimmed,
metal halide lamps must also be considered in some areas, especially as current
technology means they now blend well with the LVTH lamps mentioned above.
Potentially suitable power ratings are 35W and 70W. With initial light outputs of 3,300
lumens and 6,600 lumens respectively, and a life expectancy of 9,000 hours, they are
clearly more efficient than LVTH and therefore appropriate for use where there is
necessarily a long distance between the luminaire and the area it is lighting.
A further light source to be considered is the LED, this at last being sufficiently powerful
to compete with conventional light sources. LEDs are extremely efficient and have a
life expectancy of up to 50,000 hours, making maintenance negligible. Whilst their
capital cost is higher than that for conventional LV TH lighting, their lower wattage and
longer life means the payback period is much shorter than it used to be.
The proposals for St Peter’s use all three of the above light sources. Shorter throw
distances use LED lights, longer throw distances use metal halide, and those where
exceptional colour rendering is required, use LVTH lights.
1.5.3 Lighting in the Nave (Extract from Paul Covell’s report. Illustrations and full proposals for
other areas appear in his report at Appendix D)
There is already a precedent for the use of chandeliers in the nave, as the photo on the
following page illustrates. For the main ‘task’ lighting in the nave, I consider it would be
appropriate to reintroduce some form of chandelier as this would lower the light source
and overcome the current glare which obscures the wall frescos. Whilst the design of
these would be undertaken in collaboration with the Architect, I suggest the main
downlighting light source would use dimmable self-contained LEDs, with further small
spots to gently up-light the frescos on either side. As with the original chandeliers, the
new ones would be mounted on ‘gallows’ brackets to bring the unit out over the pews.
Despite the frescos, the nave can feel rather gloomy due to the height of the timber
roof. To overcome this, I suggest that a compact adjustable LED floodlight is mounted
on the wall end of each chandelier gallows bracket. The example shown at the end of

this section is white, but would be finished to blend with the chandeliers and brackets.
To illuminate the east end of the nave I suggest that vertical 3-circuit lighting tracks are
mounted in the window reveals above the gallows brackets on arch 1 (east end, north
and south), and the adjacent arch 2. The easternmost tracks would each be fitted with
an adjustable metal halide spotlight and two adjustable LVTH spotlights to illuminate
the area in front of the chancel steps as well as the first part of the chancel.
Additionally, two further LVTH spotlights would be mounted towards the top of each
track to illuminate the chancel arch fresco of the crucifixion. The tracks above arch 2
would be similar but would not include any spots on the fresco.
Each group of track mounted spots would be controlled on a separate circuit, as would
the easternmost chandeliers and roof uplights so these could be used independently
during concerts.
Postcard showing earlier chandeliers in the nave
1.5.4 Lighting in Other Areas
To avoid duplication the remainder of the lighting proposals should be read from Paul
Covell’s full report at Appendix D.
1.5.5 Church Sound Systems (Extract from Paul Covell’s report D)
There are two basic types of church sound system. The first is to reinforce the spoken
word so that the congregation can hear clearly. From an audio point of view this type of
system should be as discreet as possible so that the reinforcement is almost
imperceptible, and is really only noticed when it is switched off. It should not sound like
a public address on a railway station! The system also needs to take account of the
acoustics of the building, especially when these are as ‘live’ as they often are in a
church, otherwise the spoken word may become unintelligible. The frequency
response of a sound reinforcement system, in particular the loudspeakers, need only
cover the range of the human voice. Simplicity of control is important for this type of
system. Indeed, many are installed on a ‘plug and play’ basis, although we are firmly of
the opinion that easy access to alter the volume of microphones is important, as
readers and intercessors can vary from the timid to the drill sergeant!
The second type of church sound system is able to cater for the above but is also
required to reproduce recorded, and sometimes, live music. This type of system,

especially when used to amplify live music, is necessarily more complex, and requires
loudspeakers which can reproduce a far greater frequency range. Whilst a simple
control system is still required for day to day use, a more sophisticated mixer and a
greater number of audio inputs will be required for music, especially live music.
Both the above types of sound system need to be supplemented by a facility to aid the
hard of hearing. This is most commonly an ‘induction loop’ which enables those with
hearing aids to tune into the system. Higher quality infra-red and radio broadcast
systems are also available but these are far more expensive than a loop system, and
require each listener to wear a special receiver. Infra-red systems also require each
listener to have a clear line of sight to the ‘radiator’ which broadcasts the signal. Infrared
and wireless systems are more commonly found in theatres and lecture/conference
halls than in churches.
1.5.6 Existing Sound System in St Peter’s (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)
As with the lighting, much of the existing sound system in St Peter’s is relatively old,
although there have been more recent additions such as some wireless microphones.
Whilst only really suitable for speech, the loudspeakers, some of which seem to have
been added after the initial system was installed, are quite intrusive. Control of the
system is from the sound ‘rack’ (a wall mounted timber box beneath the mains
distribution board in the north transept), yet there is no loudspeaker in this area so
anyone adjusting the volume of microphones, for instance, is unable to monitor the
result. There is an induction loop for the hard of hearing, and we suggest this and its
amplifier may be re-used. Similarly, whilst additional cabling will be required for some
microphones and for data control, some of the existing microphone points, for instance
in the pulpit and on the lectern, may also be re-used.
1.5.7 Brief (Extract from Paul Covell’s report)
At a meeting in the church on 4 February 2013, the following sound system issues, some of
which are noted above, were discussed:
- The existing system is inflexible and is designed primarily for speech reinforcement. It
does not reproduce music well.
- The current sound mixer forms part of the amplifier and is located in the north
transept from where it is not possible to judge the output volume or balance.
- There are currently no facilities for recording or replay of CDs or iPods.
- Whilst it is not necessary to relay the choir via the sound reinforcement system, a
request was made for a pair of high quality microphones to allow recordings to be
made.
My response to the above was as follows:
- Install new loudspeakers, generally in the same locations as the existing units, but
selected to ensure a much wider frequency response for high quality reproduction of
music as well as speech.
- Any new sound system should include the facility to ‘zone’ the loudspeakers, so that
those in the crossing, nave, chancel, and Keble Chapel can be used independently if
required. This will, for instance, allow midweek services in the Keble Chapel to be
relayed only to that zone, and those in the crossing to be switched on or off as
required.
- The system should include inputs for fixed and wireless microphones, CD/iPod player,
and temporary ‘band’ microphones and guitars. The latter would be terminated in a

compact wall or floor mounted box with a multipin connector, allowing a larger ‘stage
box’ (with many inputs and outputs) on a lead to be connected when required.
- The system would also include inputs to connect audio from laptops and DVD players,
should these be used on a temporary basis.
- Control of the system would be via a DSP (digital sound processor). This would be
programmed with a series of ‘presets’ to organise the routing of signals as well as
having facilities to ‘equalise’ (comprehensive tone control) the sound, and to set a
delay time on some loudspeakers (such as those at the back of the church), if
necessary.
- Two sound mixers should be included. One would be a compact digital unit for use
during most services and might have up to 8 simple faders to control fixed and wireless
microphones and the CD machine. It could be plugged into any one of a series of data
points, allowing it to be operated from different positions as appropriate. The second
mixer would be a much larger unit for use with bands and other events. This would
have at least 24 inputs plus a number of outputs. If an analogue unit were selected it
would require expensive multicore cables and therefore have only one or two
positions from where it could be operated. If a more complex digital mixer were
selected it could be connected to the same data points as the smaller mixer, although
some specialist training would be required to operate this.
1.5.8 Sound System Proposals (Extract from Paul Covell’s report, see Appendix D)
Taking the above requirements into account, I suggest a system based on the following:
Basic System
- 2 new pulpit/lectern microphones complete with shockmounts.
- 2 new recording quality choir microphones complete with mounting brackets to enable
installation towards the top of the wrought iron screens (to the west of the mid choir
column on each side).
- 4 new UHF wireless microphone kits – 3 with lavalier mics and 1 handheld.
- 1 mic floorstand with boom.
- Channel 38 wireless mic license (currently £75 pa).
- 2 active dipole antenna wireless antenna for above, complete with a wireless mic
antenna distributor.
- Rack mounted iPod dock with wireless controller.
- Professional solid state/CD recorder/player (also provides playback of USB recordings).
- 8-channel Audio DSP (digital sound processor) with 8-channel input expander. This unit
also allows zoning of the loudspeakers so that those in the Coffee area, Nave, Chancel
and Keble Chapel can be used independently or in different combinations.
- Portable 8-channel control panel for above (connects to the system via any one of
several proposed data sockets).
- 4 low impedance amplifiers (each with 2 channels).
- 13 full range column loudspeakers complete with mounting brackets.
- 1 demountable weatherproof column loudspeaker for use outside west front if
required.
- 1 pair audio/Cat5 adapters (allows the audio output of a laptop to connect to the
system via any one of several proposed data sockets).
- 1 unbalanced/balanced converter for use with above. Live Music Mixer – Option 1
(Analogue)
- Analogue Mixer with 24 input channels, mixer connection loom cable, stagebox with
captive multicore, 4 multiway connections points, and monitor headphones. The above

combination connects to the system via multicore cabling (2 stagebox and 2 mixer
points allowed for). Live Music Mixer
– Option 2 (Digital)
- Digital mixer with 24 input/12 output stage box, complete with rugged Cat5E
connection leads and monitor headphones. The above combination connects to the
system via any one of several proposed data sockets, and is therefore very flexible.
1.5.9 Costs Relating to Sound and Lighting Proposals (Extracts from Paul Covell’s report)
1.5.9.1 Lighting
Capital costs for the proposed lighting scheme, including luminaires and accessories, the
wireless control system, and suitable allowances for emergency lighting, cabling and
installation are likely to be about £80,000. The actual figure will depend partly on the final
design of the proposed chandeliers which are a bespoke item, and on the emergency
lighting.
1.5.9.2 Sound
The cost of the basic sound system, including a timber clad equipment rack with patch
bays to route the audio and data signals, all cabling, and installation, is likely to be about
£24,000. Including the necessary additional wiring, the analogue mixer option would add
about £3,100 to this figure. The digital mixer option, which does not require any
additional wiring, would now only add about £3,000, costs having come down since 2013.
1.5.9.3 Access
As other high level works are likely to take place either side of the lighting and sound
system installation, the above figures do not include any allowance for access
equipment.
1.5.10 Gross Budget Costs
Paul Covell’s figures do not include contingencies or professional fees. VAT is not
included either. As an approved alteration to a listed church, VAT on a new lighting
scheme may be recoverable via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if
still available when work is undertaken. Including 10% for builders work in
connection and a provisional allowances of a further 10% for contingencies, 15% for
professional fees and 20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £183,845
say £185,000.

1.6.0 Heating and Environmental Control
1.6.1 Background
A report by Chris Reading was commissioned in conjunction with the initial feasibility study
in 2013. He revised his proposals in 2015, his revised report appearing at appendix E.
The report assesses the suitability of the existing heating system, its efficiency, operating
costs and sustainability. It evaluates actual performance against perceived comfort levels
and suggests possible improvements. These proposals were made following discussions
with the organ consultant and the wallpainting conservator as the organ and the
decorative surfaces may suffer if their needs are not considered in conjunction with
proposed changes in environmental conditions.
1.6.2 Design Considerations (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)
The church building is a heavyweight but poorly insulated building. It has a high mass that
can store energy but will not react quickly to the introduction of heat. This stored energy
can be manifest as either warm or cold radiating surfaces. In a church building with large
expanses of cold wall and window surfaces, it is necessary to include a radiant component
of heat before comfort conditions can be satisfied, and consequently convective heating
systems are seldom satisfactory. They can cause large temperature stratification within
high spaces. Therefore, a new system should provide an environment that meets “dry
resultant temperature or operational temperature” criteria rather than air temperature.
Further, for energy efficiency it is also beneficial if high places in the building are as close
in temperature to those at low level as possible. The hotter the roof becomes, the greater
the heat transfer to outside.
1.6.3 Internal Environment (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)
Within a church such as St Peters internal conditions need to be considered for the well-
being of the church contents, in particular the wall paintings and the organ. A stable
temperature helps protect the organ timber and stops it expanding and contracting leading
to cracking. The relative humidity levels allow the organ to remain corrosion free and
protect stops, leathers etc. The Institute of British Organ Building advises that conditions
should ideally be within an environmental band as follows:
Dry bulb Temperature, unoccupied, not to exceed 10 deg C
Dry bulb temperature, occupied for short periods, <20 deg C
Relative humidity, between 55% and 75% and ideally maintained above 50% RH.
To protect the wallpaintings, wall surfaces should be kept in a stable state, such that salts
within the stonework or render do not move in and out of solution, which is when most
damage occurs. Practically this means either keeping the atmosphere above about 80% RH
or below 70% RH. Clearly it is not desirable to maintain a humid environment as a high RH
would not suit other requirements within the building. This suggests an ideal might be to
keep the internal environment at a maximum of 10 deg C during unoccupied periods and
less than 20 deg C during occupied periods while maintaining humidity levels between 55%
and 70% RH.
In order to manage the heat up within a large building using an intermittent heating regime
most engineers will opt for a reasonably high internal background temperature of around
12 deg C. However, there is also the need to avoid rapid changes when raising temperature
from this background level as this might stress the timbers and organ unacceptably.
Conversely, a slow warm up may conflict with the needs of those who use the building.

Given the reasonably tight environmental constraints that a new heating system needs to
address, control of relative humidity during unoccupied hours, coupled with an over-riding
maximum temperature set point is the best strategy. For short periods, such as those for
services, concerts and other events the temperature can be allowed to gently rise to a
more comfortable level. This is best provided with a relatively high radiant heating
component to help assist with perceived comfort and to limit temperature stratification.
1.6.4 Options (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)
Given the theoretical analysis, there are four main options for heating the building. All have
their own problems and some will not meet all the criteria given above. The options are:
i. New “wet” radiator system
ii. New wet underfloor heating system
iii. New convective system using either pressurised warm air system or other
convective systems, such as gas convector heaters or fan convectors.
iv. New electric radiant system
The pros and cons are broadly as follows:
i. Wet Radiator System:
Pros:
- Good for human thermal comfort, providing radiant heat component is kept high
- Good for the maintenance of the building fabric
- Tailored response time, if correctly designed and installed
- Cheaper running costs than for an electric system
- Virtually noiseless
- By careful design, existing plant room and ducts can be used through the church
- Long life expectancy of overall system
Cons:
- Capital cost of installation is higher than warm air or electric
- Response time is slower than warm air (a positive point in most historic buildings)
- Radiators such as the Dunphy “Minster” type should be avoided, (these are convective
steel panel radiators and not suited to this building)
- Pipe routes and placement of radiators means the system must be designed to meet
the aesthetic requirements of the architect and other agencies, such as the DAC.
- The use of fixed under pew radiators limits the flexibility of the space.
- In a wide church like St Peter’s it is difficult to maintain comfort conditions in the
centre of the space from radiators at the perimeter of the aisles alone.
ii. Underfloor heating system
Pros:
- Best for thermal comfort of congregation
- Excellent for the maintenance of the building fabric
- Minimises temperature stratification
- Cheaper running costs
- Noiseless
- Invisible
- Virtually vandal proof

- Longevity of system
- Has the added ability to make use of reclaimed low grade heat either from heat pumps
or other means, should this become practical.
Cons:
- Capital cost of installation is high.
- Disruption to church during installation, which may not be possible owing to sensitivity
of the fabric.
- Response time is slower than for radiator system. The system would have to be kept
on at a low level temperature in order to provide a reasonable response time.
- Need to be careful that the design does not drive additional ground moisture transfer.
- Low grade heat from underfloor heating will not be sufficient to heat the church
without additional radiators.
Underfloor heating has the following additional benefits:
1. This form of heating keeps temperature stratification to a minimum as it operates on a
large surface area at low temperature. The maximum floor surface temperature being
in the order of 27 degrees C, which is governed by human comfort conditions.
2. Given the above, it offers a gentle heat input into the building with a slower response
than most other types of heating, thus avoiding large temperature and relative
humidity swings within the building. This is particularly important where there is likely
to be a high moisture content in the stonework.
3. It offers the best opportunity for human comfort, allowing the feet to be warmer than
the head, provides large radiating surface and is more likely to be able to maintain the
dry resultant temperature at minimum air temperature.
4. It is possible to use low grade (temperature) heated water, particularly when the
building is unoccupied giving environmental and efficiency benefits, as heat pumps are
ideally suited to partner an underfloor heating system, particularly in mid-season.
5. It offers gentle control for conservation heating of the space. If required, perimeter
heating would take the form of radiant panels or radiators sensitively and carefully
integrated into the building. The same heating plant would be able to operate both
underfloor and perimeter systems.
1.6.5 Other Alternatives
New convective system using either pressurised warm air system or other convective
systems, such as gas convector heaters or fan convectors are discussed in the report at
Appendix E. New electric radiant systems are also considered. Neither is advocated.
1.6.6 Green Technologies
Green technologies should be considered and are covered in the appended report.
Biomass boilers and heat pumps are the best options but both have high capital costs.
1.6.7 Recommendations (adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)
The report recommends a new low pressure hot water heating system, designed for the
church to match the layout of the fabric and seating and giving a high radiative output. At
today's date we recommend that gas remains the fuel of choice for this building. If the cost
and/or the impact on the church fabric is unacceptable, the next best solution would be to
use a radiator based system in the aisles, augmented by additional heat emitters below the
existing floor grilles to supplement.

1.6.8 Architectural Considerations
If pews are to be movable or removed altogether then an underfloor heating system with
perimeter radiators would give the best overall result. The installation of an underfloor
heating system involves the disruption of existing floor surfaces and sub-floor construction.
It would inevitably result in the loss of some of the existing flooring materials and although
it might conceivably be possible to salvage a proportion, this obviates underfloor heating in
the choir and sanctuary. It would probably also necessitate a new floor slab in the nave if
existing floor levels are to be retained. If the cost and/or the impact on the church fabric is
unacceptable, the next best solution would be to use a radiator based system in the aisles,
augmented by additional heat emitters below the existing floor grilles to supplement.
1.6.9 Environmental Monitoring
Environmental monitoring is recommended over the forthcoming twelve month period to
inform detail design considerations.
1.6.9 Costs for New Heating Installation (Adapted from Chris Readings Report – See Appendix E)
Budget costs for the proposed system would be £140,000, excluding contingencies,
builders work, professional fees and VAT. Were an underfloor heating system to be
adopted, builders work costs would be high, pushing contract costs up towards £300,000
or beyond.
Chris Reading’s figures include contingencies but not professional fees or VAT. As an
approved alteration to a listed church, VAT on a new underfloor heating scheme may
be recoverable via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if still available
when the work is carried out. Including provisional allowances of 17% for professional
fees (to accommodate architects/principal designers and M&E engineers fees) and
20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £421,200:
say £425,000

1.7.0 Seating
1.7.1 Existing Bench Seating
The existing benches are uncomfortable and inflexible in use, being heavy to move. In fact
they are never moved because every other pew is fixed by its connections to the heating
system. A more flexible seating system would allow a greater range of activities within the
church, allowing it to respond more readily to changing needs. Nonetheless the existing
seating may have formed part of the original church design by G.E.Street and as such may
prove worthy of retention on the grounds of their provenance. This must be ascertained.
Existing benches, some with under-pew heating.
1.7.2 Alternative Types of Seating
Movable seating might be provided, either as chairs or by using new benches. In either
case, a good design, allowing maximum flexibility and ease of use is recommended. Current
market leaders include the Howe 40/4 stacking chair and the Luke Hughes church benches.
There are others, several of them being worthy of consideration but the proposed re-
seating arrangements that follow are based on these two designs.
1.7.3 Stacking Benches
Benches by Luke Hughes & Co are relatively light, stackable and movable on purpose-made trollies.

Stacking benches by Luke Hughes & Co have been used in many churches and cathedrals.
The illustration below shows an installation in Boxgrove Priory, West Sussex in 2009 by
Michael Drury Architects. The church was cold and damp and the pews and their rotten
pew islands were replaced with oak benches on a level stone pavement with underfloor
heating throughout the body of the church.
1.7.4 Stacking Chairs
The Howe 40/4 stacking chair system was designed in the 1960s. Stacking chairs must be
durable as well as comfortable and these have been tried and tested in many churches and
cathedrals since.
The chair is ergonomically designed and can be stacked in linked units or singly on purpose
made trollies. The design is named for its ability to stack 40 chairs high in a height of 4 feet.

An installation using the Howe 40/4 stacking chair system in Salisbury Cathedral by St Ann’s Gate Architects.
Proposed Lay-out
It is suggested that benches be
used in the central blocks of
seating at St Peter’s,
augmented by stacking chairs in
the aisles. This arrangement
might be suitable if seating
within the main body of the
church were to be moved less
frequently than that in the
aisles but the use of benches
does not preclude alternative
arrangements as this seating
lay-out by St Ann’s Gate
Architects for an aisled church
in Odiham, Hampshire indicates.
The central blocks of seating in the nave at St Peter’s are 2.65m wide and could be replaced
by single Luke Hughes benches 2.5m wide, each seating six people. Replacing the existing
19 benches on each side of the central aisle would seat 228 people. Alternative arrange-
ments might also be possible, using shorter benches to increase flexibility although seating
numbers might be reduced to 190. Howe 40/4 chairs in the aisles could accommodate a
similar number to the central blocks if maximum seating capacity was required, giving a
total seating capacity in excess of 400 but current liturgical arrangements in the aisles
would reduce the total, as would the café proposals shown in section 1.8.0 below.

1.7.5 Costs
Based on current costs, the benches might cost in the region of £50,000, depending on
precise numbers and bench lengths. The chairs might cost in the region of £35,000.
The associated equipment consisting of frontals, hymn book/hassock shelves, added
arms on certain seats for those with limited mobility, dollies and storage racks might
add a further £20,000. Professional fees would be minimal and as an approved
alteration to a listed church, the church might consider negotiations concerning VAT
recovery via the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if still available when
the work is carried out. An allowance of 20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of
£126,000:
say £130,000
1.8.0 Community Café
1.8.1 Summary
The PCC wishes to re-open a café in the western bays of the church, as an initial phase of
longer term plans to maximise the potential of the church In Bournemouth’s busy town
centre. The café will sell a range of coffee, cakes, sandwiches and light meals that can be
served without the need for permanent alterations to the church or for back-of-house
catering facilities. The café was initially discussed as a key enabler in the overall larger
redevelopment project planned for the church building. The church had tried to launch this
café with various levels of support and contributors to the idea over recent years but had
not been able to get it moving. The business plan has since been thoroughly re-thought, as
both an initial capital cost and also in terms of the ongoing management and running costs.
The previous café, presently closed, looking south

1.8.2 Location and Proposed Facilities
An outline design by St
Ann’s Gate Architects in
Feb 2014 explored the
potential for a community
café at the west end of the
church. A sketch plan,
shown above, indicated a
possible arrangement.
Existing café facilities, now
closed, still occupy the
south-west corner of the
church, in the southern bay
of the western transept.
The new operation might
replace the existing kitchen- The Existing Kitchenette
ette, again housed in a purpose made unit, perhaps still beneath a drop down lid. A recent
review of this proposal suggests that the proposal remains workable as long as hot food is
limited, it being difficult to accommodate extraction facilities within the main body of the
church. The current water and drainage arrangements would probably be sufficient if they
were in good working order but new electrical services would need to be provided.

1.8.3 Impact
This proposal has been formulated to ensure that there will be no permanent impact upon
the church fabric. Existing fixtures will remain in place and fittings will be re-used where
possible. Three bench pews would be moved from each side of the central aisle at the back
of the nave. These bench pews are the same dimension as those originally located in the
north aisle, are loose fixed and could be easily returned to their original location in the
future if re-seating proposals described elsewhere in this report fail to materialise. These
three pews can be moved without alterations to the heating system as it is not until the
fourth pair that under-pew heating is presently provided.
The rear three benches on
either side of the central
aisle could be relocated to
the north aisle, seen beyond.
The previous cafe
arrangements are
utilitarian and new
furnishing would be of a
higher standard,
providing a level of
comfort and a sense of
welcome. It might be
similar to that seen in
the illustration overleaf
which shows the café at
the nearby Russell-
Coates art gallery. The
visual impact upon the
interior of St Peter’s
should be an
improvement and a
successful community
café would bring a
sense of vitality to the
church during the
week.
Typical bucket seats, sofa and table seating

1.8.4 Costs and Business Plan (The following summary is adapted from the outline business case
by New Way UK Consultants Ltd for a Community Café at St Peter’s, dated June 2015. It
appears at Appendix F.)
‘St Peter’s church requires this new cafe facility to address both the building development
vision and in attracting more general public to interact with the church so supporting that
community development. It should benefit from some subsidisation of cost generated by
the facility in the longer term.
The space has been reviewed and some investigations made on electrical supplies and the
like and it appears that the café can be done in that location and the big issue is more a
question of funding.
There are a number of anticipated benefits from this project which revolve around it being
a facility that will aid in getting the Heritage Lottery Fun for the large development project
for the church and with a city centre location, with a good design and attractiveness to
users, providing a range of good priced items that will work well for the church and the
community it seeks to serve, but that will compete well with the large number of coffee
shops in that area.
It is recognised that there may be some potential dis-benefits to church members but that
if these are carefully managed and addressed that most of these could be avoided or
minimised.
Timescales for the project are 2 months for design and set up and 2-3 months for
construction and Fitout. Then major design and construction costs will be incurred
immediately as the scheme progresses.
There are a number of risks relating to the project which are a mixture of external and
internal ones, the external ones are being addressed through the process to minimise their
effect or discount them where possible and the internal ones are being managed through
good communication of the project.
The investment appraisals show good levels of return of 10 to 20% profit of between £10k
to £38k if a 40-50% occupancy level is achieved. The principle sources of income are
expected to be the Diocesan Loan and operating income from the cafe.
Costs currently anticipated are £75k for construction and Fitout including fees and
associated costs on top’:
£75,000

1.9.0 The Resurrection Chapel
1.9.1 Future Use
The Resurrection Chapel was re-roofed in 2012 and further work is presently in hand. Its
end use is under consideration to ensure a viable economic future for this important listed
building, designed by Sir Ninian Comper as a War Memorial Chapel in 1925.
1.9.2 External Works
Although the main roof was renewed in 2012, the vestry roof to the east was not. A new
kitchen will be provided in the old vestry space and this forms part of a contract presently
in hand. It includes the extension of the vestry block southwards to provide a mobility
accessible w.c.
1.9.3 Internal Works
The interior was cluttered,
the decorations in a poor
state and the plaster
damaged by damp
penetration. The chapel
needed heating, re-wiring
and re-lighting and the old
carpet tiles removed.
Mobility access issues
needed to be addressed. All
this work is presently in
hand, due for completion
later this summer.
The contract sum is £108,510. Including allowances of 13% for professional fees and
20% VAT would result in a gross budget cost of £147,140 say £150,000

Phase 2
2.1.0 North Side Development (The following summary is adapted from the feasibility study by
Michael Drury Architects, dated May 2008. The feasibility study appears at Appendix G.)
2.1.1 Options Analysis and Feasibility Study
Design proposals for a north side development were formulated in 2008 and responded to
an earlier options analysis. Of the seven options identified, three adjoined the church.
Two potential sites were considered worthy of further exploration – the north side site
(number 1 on the location plan below) and that to the east of the church (number 5), both
of which had the opportunity for direct connection with the church but without the same
degree of adverse impact on the church presented by the site to the south (number 4).
Sketch schemes were prepared for the two potential sites and from these the client group
selected the site to the north of the church for further consideration. This north side sketch
scheme was worked up as the basis of the feasibility study which appears at appendix G.
Location plan showing the seven sites identified in the Options Analysis

2.1.2 The North Side Site
The site is located in the angle between the vestry range and the north nave aisle.
North side site highlighted on OSMap (above) and on aerial photograph (below)
The Church from the West (Photo taken from Microsoft VIRTUAL EARTH)

2.1.3 Site description
The site is bordered to the north by St Peter’s Road, one of the principal roads serving the
town centre. The north aisle and the range of vestries (with crypt below) border the south
and east sides of the site respectively. The ground level of the site is approximately 3
metres above pavement level (as is the church itself) but slopes, with the level at the west
end of the church being only about 2 metres above the road. At the east end, below the
vestries, the level of the crypt coincides with street level. The retaining wall to St Peter’s
Road is of natural stone with localized planting to the top edge. A pedestrian access
through the churchyard runs past the vestry range and on past the north side of the
church, through the site in question. A flight of steps through the retaining wall connects to
the road level below.
The site is currently a tarmac car park, used by the church. Access from the west is
restricted around the foot of the tower.

2.1.4 Optimising the potential of the site and its levels
Excavation would allow new accommodation at crypt level, accessible from St Peter’s
Road. A two storey design might provide meeting space at road level, connected to the
existing crypt, the upper storey being minimised to reduce the impact of the new building
on the church. A presence at street level would offer an opportunity for the church to
further its ministry with a ‘shop front’ - an opportunity not available to many churches.
The vestry range, north-east of the church has an existing crypt providing a small meeting
room, presently lit by two light wells. Restricted access means that the room is under-
used. There is a small existing kitchen and lavatories at this level which might serve a new
facility, were the crypt to be extended to the street line as part of the new proposals.
Section through the proposed development, looking east.
2.1.5 The visual context
The streetscape surrounding the site
provides a dense urban setting. To
the north-east is a tall six storey
building, shown here, the ground
floor of which is presently a night-
club/bar. Facing the site on the
other side of the road are rest-
aurants and shops with upper floors
set back above to three or four
storeys.

2.1.6 Visual impact of a new building on the church
Unobstructed views of the church are presently available from St. Peter’s Road. The stone
retaining wall follows the street line, broken only by an opening for the steps up into the
churchyard from pavement level. The walling stone is darkened by pollution deposits and
grimy but nonetheless, were a building to replace it, the most careful design would be
essential to avoid significant visual impact on the church.
The church from the north side of St. Peter’s Road
From the north-east showing a two level scheme. The spire, tower & western transept gable still dominate.

A building on two levels would conceal the aisle from the north but the dominant
features of the church remain uncompromised. The upper level of the new building stops
against the west transept gable and touches the north aisle at eaves level with a glazed
link that slopes down and away from the existing aisle roof. From St. Peter’s road the
church above remains visible, the western transept gable maintaining its dominance on
the north elevation, with the tower and spire rising above.
As seen in the section shown earlier, the upper level of the building will not sit directly
over that below. The lower level sits away from the church to ensure its structural
stability. At the east end it connects to the existing crypt and makes use of the existing
facilities. Natural light into this lower level is crucial. Above, the upper level sits further
back from the road to maintain views of the church from the road and to provide the
opportunity for natural light to the lower rooms from above
View from the north-west on St. Peter’s Road

2.1.7 Connection to the church fabric
The new structure would touch lightly against the existing building and although the
north elevation of the aisle will become internal, it would be lit from above through a
glazed roof section, shown in the illustration below, allowing light to wash down this wall
to the aisle windows.
The proposed new café in the western crossing will provide a vibrant sense of community
life within the church and might be retained, served and augmented by the new facilities
to the north. A new entrance to the church might be made at the west end of the north
aisle through the end bay (seen to the left of the aisle windows in the picture on the right
below). A new door here would give direct access into the nave from the new building
and would align with the south porch door opposite (seen in conjunction with the old café
in the picture on the left below). The war memorial would have to be re-positioned,
hopefully in a more prominent location.

At the east end of the new building, connections would be made at the lower level via the
existing window in the west end of the crypt meeting room and at the upper level via the
existing north transept door.
The crypt could be opened up into the lower level accommodation, perhaps providing
kitchen space and lavatories for a much larger room, entered from the street and with
additional light from above. A staircase to the crypt might remain within the vestry range
as a secondary access and fire escape route although the existing stairs may require
replacement to make them compliant.
At the upper level of the new building, the transept door would become internal, the east
end of the new building being contrived to address the levels of the stepped wall head to
the vestry and the existing window on the north aisle. External access might still be
provided from the new building at this point, allowing the existing vestry office windows
to remain unobstructed.
Public access from the eastern churchyard to the steps to St Peter’s Road could be
relocated within the scheme although the route past the church at the upper level, and
around the foot of the tower, would no longer be available.

2.1.8 Consultation
The Rector and Parochial Church Council of St. Peter’s Church, and their architects invited
advice from the DAC, the local planning authority and the statutory consultees on the
scheme illustrated in the feasibility study. The concept was well received but the impact
of the two story proposal on the Grade 1 listed church caused concern among some of
the consultees. Although there have been on-going discussions since, a revised scheme
has yet to be agreed.
2.1.9 Costs
The scheme illustrated in the feasibility study was costed by Peter Winter, QS in May
2008 at £1,222,680. This included an allowance for contingencies and professional fees.
Although the recession followed, inflation has been significant in the seven years since
and an equivalent cost of £1,525,143 might be appropriate, say £1,525,000

Cost Summary
3.1.0 Phase 1: Cost Summary £
3.1.1 Organ 800,000
3.1.2 Wallpainting Conservation 191,500
3.1.3 Fabric Repair and Conservation 360,000
3.1.4 Lighting and Sound installations 185,000
3.1.5 Heating 425,000
3.1.6 Seating 130,000
3.1.7 Community Café 75,000
3.1.8 Resurrection Chapel 150,000
All costs are approximate. They include contingencies, professional
fees and VAT but builders work in conjunction with the electrical
and sound installations is not included and although it cannot be
estimated at this stage, an allowance is advisable. Work to the
electrical infrastructure is not included either. A 10% contingency is
suggested to cover such items and other unforeseen costs.
3.1.9 Contingencies 231,650
3.1.10 Total Phase 1 Budget Costs 2,548,150
[VAT on approved alteration to a listed church may be recoverable via
the Listed Places of Worship Grant (LPWG) Scheme if it still operates
when the work is carried out. If VAT is recoverable, the total gross
budget cost reduces by about 20% to £2,123,458]
3.2.0 Phase 2: Cost Summary £
3.2.1 North Side Development (see section 2.1.0 below) 1,525,000
3.2.2 Total Phase 2 Budget Costs 1,525,000
3.3.0 Total Costs for both phases 4,073,150

St Peters Feasibility Study 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to St Peters Feasibility Study 2015

Similar to St Peters Feasibility Study 2015 (20)

St Peters Feasibility Study 2015