A great list, but we have to start by reversing the recent planning approval for flats without windows. Planners suggest there are many schemes of windowless basement flats which they seem powerless to prevent.
Furthermore, the extensions to General Permitted Development Rights to convert unused office and the recent widening of those Rights must be reversed.
If one reads the full ARB case transcript, Matthew Deering admitted that he had not set out terms of employment, did not have PI insurance, and did not provide adequate drawings, specifications & etc for the purposes agreed.
However the situation was complex with a "specialist company that designs dental practices" who were involved before Matthew Deering was appointed.
The whole business seems to have been a giant con on the public purse using Charity rules to keep information private whilst absconding with millions.
Transfer of staff between stakeholders, not to mention Heatherwick's dubious dual role.
The neighbours are a church and block of flats.
Picture of existing in google street here…
I would not novate to a contractor.
I would not agree "required to seek to ensure the designs complied with relevant Statutory Requirements". What, in legal terms, does "seek to ensure mean".
Try but not bother too much ?
Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) has rocketed because of worries about cladding replacement costs. Insurers are very focused.
Surveyors for example, cannot obtain insurance to inspect and open up suspect cladding, stopping the whole process of replacement.