What ever happened to quality public buildings?

A few weeks ago my wife and I celebrated our 13 years of blissful marriage with a day trip to St Albans with our two kids. Having negotiated the one way system and found a multi storey car park we set out on foot to visit the Cathedral.

The History of St Albans Cathedral is somewhat chequered and was brilliantly brought to life for us by the guide who showed us (and our surprisingly attentive children) around. 

Originally founded as a Benedictine abbey founded by King Offa in ad.793 the current building was begun in 1077 by the Normans and was extended in the "Early English" style as the congregation grew. this extension can clearly be seen as the Norman rounded arches give way to the more pointed style further down the nave.

In 1539, the various buildings around the Cathedral were demolished and sold as building materials to a local contractor, leaving just the main church and gatehouse still standing and the Town purchased the church from the King as a parish church.

The financial burden of maintaining the building became too heavy for the town to bear and, as a result, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair. In the 1800s Lord Grimthorpe stepped in and, on the basis that he was allowed a free hand with regards to design, funded the complete restoration of what we now see.

Now, it is clear that Lord Grimthorpe had no architectural training and (according to our guide) little taste, but he managed what must have been an incredible feat, turning a virtually derelict building into one of the finest churches in the region.

Having been wowed by the Cathedral, I was equally impressed with the 1980s extension, which is known as "The Chapter House". This addition was designed by Sir William Whitfield and the brief was very simple. The original chapter house (destroyed during The Reformation) had been the hub of daily life of the monastery and the new building should be its modern equivalent.

The Chapter House, crafted from over 500,000 reproduction Roman bricks, flows effortlessly from the Cathedral and the detailing, when combined with the use of the exposed brick and concrete, screams of craftsmanship!

I could not help wondering (as I waited for the family to emerge from the toilets) why it is that so much of our recent public architecture has failed to meet the standards of architecture and construction quality that is clearly visible in this sensitive addition to a much loved historic building.

There has been much debate in recent weeks about the quality of the buildings resulting from the drive to rebuild our schools and hospitals and there will be, no doubt, much pressure to reduce the cost to the public purse of such projects in the future, but is this a false economy?

The week before visiting St Albans I attended a design workshop at Harlow Council's relatively new Civic Centre. This is a building that was designed and constructed as a part of a wider project to redevelop the area of Harlow Town Centre known as the Water Gardens.

The project was privately funded and, in my opinion, the architecture and quality of what has been delivered leaves something (well actually quite a lot) to be desired. It's not just the poor quality materials that are distressing but also the lack of thought in the detailing.

I could not help wondering, as I walked along the corridor feeling every board of the access floor flexing and squeaking below my feet, how long the Civic Centre will last - is it destined to be a listed building of the future - I doubt it very much!

In these unprecedented times of financial restraint, should we be looking to short term cost savings when it comes to public building projects or should we, instead, be looking to ensure that the design and build quality is such that the building outlasts our generation?

In my opinion, we need to have a radical change of approach when it comes to the commissioning of public buildings. we need to throw off the thinking that says that cheap and quick is best - in the medium to long term the short term savings are thrown away as we revisit or demolish poorly conceived buildings that are no longer fit for purpose or fundamentally flawed by bad design

Instead we need to embrace the concept that public buildings should last longer than those who envisage them. We need to embrace good design - by appropriately qualified professionals - and accept that good buildings should be fit for purpose and capable of accommodating change. They should offer the occupants both visual and environmental comfort and should be a lasting statement of our era.

In short, we need a return to the Architect as the central figure in the design of our public buildings and realistic budgets that allow us to construct buildings that my Grandchildren can visit and marvel at when they celebrate their 13th Wedding Anniversary!.

Does the update to Part L really address Climate Change?

Last week I finally got around to reviewing the new Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations which, for those of you who I have completely lost already, deals with the Conservation of Fuel and Power in buildings. Part L (as I shall refer to it) has, for some time now, been the primary tool of the Government for reducing the carbon footprint of both our residential and non-residential building stock through the application of ever tougher performance standards for the thermal envelope of a new building, the efficiency of any heat source used to heat said building and, latterly, requirements for some energy efficient lighting installations.

The basic aim of Part L is to drive down the CO2 emissions of buildings on an ever steeper curve until, eventually, new housing will be carbon neutral. The latest version of Part L comes into force in October of this year and, according to some, is likely to add around 6% to the cost of the construction of a new dwelling. The cost implications for extensions and refurbishments is talked about less and will probably vary - needless to say it won't be cheaper to build after October '09!

Last week I also got to go to the first day of the first Test Match against Bangladesh at Lords.

Now, you may be forgiven for asking what the connection was between these two momentous events, let me explain.

On my way to Lords and facing an hour long commute to St Johns Wood, I grabbed a free copy of the Telegraph courtesy of a free voucher. Having caught the train at Harlow Town station I settled down and opened my paper to wile away the journey and, on page 3, was confronted by the headline "A summer of '76 every decade (Met Office predicts)", it's worth a read (although I would suggest you read the rest of the blog first before clicking on the link above)!

The long and short of the article is that the Met Office, whilst dropping their seasonal predictions (after all who can forget the summer of unbroken Bar-B-Ques we had last year) the Met Office continues to provide the Government with long range forecasts and is predicting that climate change will result in extreme droughts occurring ten times as often as they do now with their worst case scenarios indicating an increase of temperature of 4degC from current averages! All of this is being compared to the Summer of 1976 which (so I am told - being two at the time) was excruciatingly hot with temperatures reaching record highs of 36degC. These exceptionally hot conditions led to reservoirs and rivers drying up, water being rationed, people being rushed to hospital with heat exhaustion and forest fires breaking out left right and centre!

Now, we should take this with a pinch of salt, after all it is only a prediction and a long range one at that, but it does raise an interesting point. Eleanor Burke, Climate Extremes Scientist with the Met Office, states in the article that:

"Britain has to prepare for 1976-style droughts. This could include designing buildings to cope with heat......"

Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations addresses the conservation of energy primarily through the use of insulation and air tightness to keep heat in but what happens when you want to keep temperatures low? The Approved Document does cover the control of Solar gain but, in my opinion, does not ensure that extreme air temperature levels outside the building do not affect the level of comfort inside the building.

One of the criticisms that can be leveled at Part L, is that it can promote a singular approach to energy efficiency (i.e. increasingly high levels of insulation) at the expense of other considerations, after all it was never originally designed to be a vehicle for driving down carbon emmissions! In doing so it fails to recognise the benefits that can be gained in providing a stable internal environment all year round.

As Architects, we often see buildings that have been constructed with a good level of insulation that have then needed air conditioning or other mechanical cooling devices to stop the occupants overheating in summer. This is particularly noticable in lightweight buildings.

We also see other examples, such as St Albans Cathedral (which I also visited this week - more about that in another post) where, through the limitations of building technology at the time, the building retains a stable internal temperature all year round due to it's massively thick masonry walls.

This use of thick masonry structures to regulate internal temperature is known as Thermal Massing. Thermal mass is a property that enables building materials to absorb, store, and later release significant amounts of heat. Buildings constructed to be thermally massive absorb energy (heat) slowly and hold it for much longer periods of time than lightweight buildings, which are designed to heat up quickly and rely on insulation to stop heat escaping.

This effect delays and reduces heat transfer through a thermal mass building component, leading to three significant benefits:

• 
  
  There are fewer spikes in the heating and cooling requirements, since mass slows the response time and moderates indoor temperature fluctuations.
• 
  
  A massive building uses less energy than a similar lightweight building due to the reduced heat transfer through the massive elements.
• 
  
  Thermal mass can shift energy demand to off-peak time periods when utility rates are lower.

The greatest advantage with thermally massive buildings, in the context of the Telegraph article, is that the effect is the same whether the heat source is internal (i.e. underfloor heating) or external (i.e. extreme external temperatures), the structure is slow to radiate heat.

If we are faced with the likihood of increasingly hot summers, it is not sufficient for Part L to simply look to make the heating of our houses and work spaces more effcient, it also needs to look to make the cooling of those same spaces equally as efficient and preferably passive.

Although the latest update to Part L is much welcomed, until it encompasses all aspects of achieving a comfortable environment for building occupiers, it will remain an ineffective way of addressing both the cause and effect of Climate Change!

Design and Build - a modern fairytale or just a tall story?

Draw up a chair, pour yourself a glass of wine and let me tell you a tale of how public projects used to be commissioned in the olden days - things are so much better now-a-days, aren't they?

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, when Clients employed Consultants who were respected as professionals and Builders built things, buildings were conceived, designed, tendered and then built and everyone was happy with their lot.

In those days, Clients trusted their consultants to provide professional advice and to steer their particular project towards completion - on time and on budget (hopefully). Everyone in the process knew where they fitted in and what their roles were and, whilst there were risks, everyone took their fair share.

In those fairytale times, Architects and their ilk concentrated on ensuring that their designs were fully considered and resolved in the sure and certain knowledge that, the more confident a builder was about what was required of him (in those days it was pretty much all men), the keener his price would be and thus the Client could be reassured that, by paying some fees before the project hit site, they were getting the best possible value for their money.

Although we didn't know it at the time, those days were soon to be lost to us!

One day someone (probably a Client) wondered out loud why it was that Clients were paying for their consultants and the builder and yet still taking a share of the risks - that seemed somewhat unfair to them!

Shortly after someone else (probably a highly paid consultant from outside the construction industry) suggested a method of transferring the risk away from the Client and minimising the upfront cost - a win/win situation, a no-brainer - get the builder to do the designs and then build them!

And Design and Build was born!

Now, you may have detected a slight tone of cynicism in the story so far - and you'd be right. In my experience Design and Build has neither reduced a Client's exposure to risk nor the final cost of their project.

As a company, we have been fortunate to benefit from some Design and Build projects, doing construction drawings for builders and, in the vast majority of cases, have charged a fee very similar to the fee we would have charged the Client if the project had been commissioned through a traditional procurement route - so no saving there then!

On every single one of those projects the Client has retained an "Employers Agent" to provide the initial designs and to act as Contract Administrator - all roles traditionally fulfilled by the Architect - who's now employed by the builder!

So, just to recap, the Client employs a consultant to fulfill the role of an Architect (apart from the detail design bit of the job) then pays the builder to employ an Architect (or 'designer') to design the building - anyone else spotted the flaw in this 'cunning plan'?

Now, there are 'Employers Agents' and 'Employers Agents'! Most of the time the tender packages that we see, from builders asking us to quote, are little more than illustrated briefing documents with little or no detail and, in many cases, the existing buildings are not even drawn accurately and the proposals are often unbuildable. On these jobs we really earn our fee - goodness knows that the Clients consultants haven't!

Occasionally the tender documents are extremely detailed and our role is reduced to simply providing details of tricky junctions and holding the builders hand during the contract - a role that the Employers Agent would probably happily fulfil if given the chance.

At both ends of the spectrum the Client ends up paying not only for two sets of consultants, where one decent one would suffice, but also a premium for the privilege of transferring an unknown level of risk to the Contractor.

So the question is this: Does the Client really benefit from Design and Build? In my opinion, the answer is 'not really - they just think they do'!

As far as most Clients are concerned they are spending less on consultants and are immunising themselves from cost and time overruns - they are deceiving themselves!

All contracts make provision for extensions of time and for claims for additional costs arising from Client variations, regardless of the procurement route, and Contractors are very skilled at making those claims. Without robust tender documents the Client remains exposed!

My other concern with Design and Build is that the Client often (unwittingly) surrenders any control over the quality of the materials used. If the tender package is weak in detail, the contractor can minimise their exposure to unforeseen costs by down-specing the raw ingredients for the building. The Client may be expecting tiled floors but, if that's not specified, they'll end up with vinyl - but still be paying for that tiling!

In this period of "austerity" it is time that Public Sector Clients started to pay more attention to how they spend their much reduced capital budgets and regain control of their projects.

Employing one Architect, working up a detailed scheme with them and then getting competitive tenders based on quality tender documents has to be more cost effective (i.e. cheaper) than, effectively, employing two consultants and paying the contractor a premium for acting as Client without any real concrete guarantees on time, cost or quality!

If you would like more information on our Design and Build projects, please visit our website and peruse our 'Projects' section.

What price an architectural legacy?

Architecture and buildings have, for some time now, been the darling of the television with programmes ranging from DIY SOS through Grand Designs and now, the latest kid on the block Restoration Man - my personal favorite!

The early incarnations of this genre of popular TV were focused on cheap thrills and the visual effects that could be achieved using Velcro and accesories (remember Changing Rooms?).

Latter attempts to do justice to this subject were much better at dealing with some of the real issues that, as Architects, we face every day - the inconsistancies of the Planning System, the rigidity of the Building Regulations and the unrealistic expectations of our Clients to mention but a few!

Great as these programmes are (I'm still banned from watching Grand Designs because I throw things at the TV in frustration) they fail to focus beyond the "trauma" experianced by the hapless family/couple embarking on the "greatest adventure of their lives".

Then along came "Restoration Man"!

Finally A property programme fronted by an Architect and one that knows what he is talking about! Not only does the programme cover the ups and downs of each project but it also draws out the architectural history of each building.

This weeks episode is a good example of how this genre could be. Yes there were ups and downs, battles with the authorities and the perenial "cashflow issues" that provide the drama, but in addition there was a genuine appreciation of the real craftsmanship on show in how the building was being slowly and sensitively returned to practical useage and an intelligent assesment of the processes and techniques being deployed.

The final result will (when finished) be a stunning home in a stunning location, even more so because of the attention to detail.

In this increasingly consumerist society we are in danger of sacrificing craftsmanship, quality and our architectural legacy in favour of speed and economy.

As an Architect practicing in Harlow, I am all too aware of the implications of such a cavalier attitude to our built environment. Yes our schools and hospitals are undergoing huge investment and renewal - but at what cost?

As an industry we need to exploit modern methods of construction but what's the point if the buildings we create are poorly detailed with an uncertain lifespan?

If we are to leave our great grandchildren a meaningful architectural legacy that can be adapted and restored as sensitively as the buildings featured in Restoration Man then quality and detailling has to be our priority - not just the cost and speed of construction.

As a profession we have a responsability to educate our clients not only about the practical aspects of the process (Planning, Building Regulations, Contract etc) but also the need to focus on the quality of design, detailing and construction of the overall project.

As a society we need to demand the very best of public buildings - not just in terms of environmental performance but in terms of anticipated lifespan, architectural quality and detail and in terms of future reuse. Doubtlessly there will still be bland, cheap, "shiny" new buildings that garner headlines but there also needs to be quality Architecture created that will last the test of time and establish a legacy that future generations want to preserve!

What impact a Hung Parliment?

So the election is finally over (almost) and in theory at least, we know what the next few years holds for us in terms of political leadership. Of course, I am assuming that a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will actually happen and will last more than a few months.

The question that we still don't really have any answers to is how the new Government's policies will really affect architectural practices like mine.

One thing that we can probably safely assume is that, in return for supporting the Conservative Government, the Lib Dems will secure a referendum on electoral reform and some sort of input into the reform of the tax system but it is unlikely that they will be able to exert much influence over other areas of policy.

So this leaves us looking at the Conservative Election Manifesto for clues.

On the face of it there aren't that many policy proposals that are specific to Architects, in fact none of the Parties has really set out any "architectural" policy proposals during the campaign. Of the Tory manifesto pledges, I could only really find a few that I thought would have a significant impact on what we do, these are as follows:

- Abolishing Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning, devolving those powers to local partnerships of businesses and Councils.

- Rewarding Councils for building new homes, especially affordable homes.

- The creation of Local Housing Trusts to allow local communities to build the homes they need.

- Strengthening the powers of Local Authorities to stop "infil" and "backland" development.

- Extension of Government procurement to small and medium sized businesses.

The truth of the matter is that the policies outlined above will not really affect the majority of practices  and despite much rhetoric on the doorstep about simplifying the planning process, no specific promises are made within the manifesto, nor is there any statement about design quality in publicly procured buildings.

True, for some practices (and certainly local planners) the abolition of the Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning infrastructure will have a huge knock on effect, but for those of us who have more modest practices, it is likely to be something that will pass almost unnoticed.

The emphasis on local communities building new homes is interesting and could, if implemented, bring a new stream of work into local practices. However, past experience has shown most local architects that their Local Authorities are unwilling to "risk" using small practices preferring instead the perceived security of a "brand" architectural practice. Unless the Conservatives can incentivize Local Authorities to look locally for Consultants, much of this new house building will, once again, be delivered by the mass house builders and their 'designers' and any sense of local character will be sacrificed for standardised house types.

The reality is that, for the last ten years or so, many small architects have increasingly been surviving on a diet of private clients doing small developments - often on backland or infil sites. the loss of these development opportunities could choke that regular supply of work and, unless it is replaced by an alternative source of work, this could lead to the extinction of small, independent practices as they are forced out of the market, merge with others in the same position or are simply swallowed up by bigger firms.

The other great unknown is whether the coalition government will scale back or call time on the Building Schools for the Future programme. For firms like mine this will not have a significant impact as we are already excluded from this work due to our size. It could however force many practices to reevaluate how they secure work and in which sectors they want to be active.

The truth of the matter is that we have no idea what will unfold in the next few months or years, the only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.

The funny thing is that, as a practice, we have been seeing an increase in both enquiries and actual commissions in the period that led upto the General Election. I think that many people were convinced that, by now, there would be a new government in power and that things would be much more certain than they are, lets hope they don't get cold feet!

In the vain hope that someone with some clout might read this blog, here are my suggestions for policies that a coalition government could introduce to make the business of a local Architect more profitable and sustainable:

Local Authority Projects:

- All Local Authority building projects to be delivered using directly employed consultants to ensure that the Local Authorities retain true control over quality and design.
- All Local Authority consultants to be employed through a simple tender process that recognises the fact that, in the case of "chartered" consultants, a high level of professionalism is guaranteed to ensure that even the smallest practice can compete with confidence.
- Professional Indemnity Insurance levels required on Local Authority projects to be set at a level that is appropriate to the scale of the project to ensure that realistic insurances are held by consultants and that small practices are not excluded from projects that they could otherwise carry out.
- Local Authority procurement guidance to place an emphasis on using local consultants, where possible to ensure that local capital expenditure is reinvested into the local economy rather than being lost to other regions.

Planning System:

- All Planning Officers to hold, or be undergoing training to hold, a design related qualification to ensure that design is at the forefront of the appraisal and decision making process.
- All Planning Committee members to be required to undergo regular CPD and design related training to ensure that the committee have at least a basic understanding of design issues and the construction industry.
- All Planning Applications to be signed, prior to submission, by a Chartered Architect (RIBA), Surveyor (RICS) or member of the CIAT to ensure that all applications submitted are of an appropriate design quality and accompanied by all the appropriate supporting information.
- All Local Authorities to establish design review panels of local design professionals and planning professionals to review all major applications prior to Planning Committee decisions to ensure that elected members have formal access to local design expertise.

Until then, we'll continue to muddle on providing our Clients with the high quality service and professionalism that they have grown to expect from us and hope that, through a growing reputation, we too can grow to compete with the big boys!

Business 2.0?

As some of you may have noticed there's an election looming next week, the sharp increase in junk mail and personal visits from your MP (who you haven't seen for the past five years) might have given you some clues, and yet life for us mere mortals continues to plod along regardless and whoever gets elected change for us will be slow in coming.... or will it?

Since I last posted anything on this site we have seen more business drop through our letter box (metaphorically speaking) and yet the sources seem to have subtly changed.

Yes, we have still picked up work from old Clients who we have relationships with that go back years (a Hospice in Ealing through a partnership with a contractor), but we are also seeing a sharp increase in enquiries through our website (three in as many days - and all great quality) and referrals through Twitter!

These are all (except the long standing Client) leads being generated by an area of marketing that, up until a year or so ago, was under-resourced and consisted simply if a website which acted as an electronic shop window....no longer!

This afternoon I went along to Be2campEast, a half-day event aiming to help people understand more about Web 2.0 applications for professionals working in the built environment, from architects to property people, from facilities managers to construction marketeers, and it has made me realise that not only is the way we market ourselves changing but the way we work with other project partners may also have to change...Business 2.0!

As an Architectural practice, we have always prided ourselves on the way that we aim to work in a non-confrontational way with Clients, Contractors and Statutory Authorities but I think that we may have missed a trick.

Today, one of the things that really stuck in my head, apart from the fact that I need to sort out my Linkedin profile (thanks Su Butcher) and my Website content (thanks Lee Smallwood), is that Web 1.0 was about lecturing or offering a product whilst Web 2.0 is about dialogue and solving peoples problems.

Although I hate to say this out loud, as Architects we quite often offer up solutions that are "take it or leave it" options, rarely do we do dialogue....which is madness because, when we do, we are great at it!

Our practice has been built on developing relationships with our Clients and Contractors and Local Authorities where we submit the most applications...that has paid off handsomely, now the game is building those relationships (using ALL the tools at hand) and allowing them to develop not just through technical professionalism and quality of service but also through dialogue and involving everyone in the debate (although please Remember I'm the Blooming Architect!)

Change is happening, in fact it's already happened and the change from web 1.0 to web 2.0 can only have a similar (positive) impact on our business!

Who benefits?

It's been an interesting start to the week and one that quite neatly illustrates some of the challenges of being a local Architect.

As with all Architects, we offer our Clients unbiased, professional advice with the aim of steering them away from the potential pitfalls (and financial exposure that accompanies them) and down the path to a well concieved, well constructed, end product - but events yesterday have made me question who really benefits from our expertise and do they recognise the benefit?

My first example is a small domestic project (approx contract value £90k). The Clients, whilst lovely people, are quite demanding and have caused us some twenty hours of additional work trying to identify cost savings to bring the tender return within budget.

Fair enough, you may say, you shouldn't have designed a building that was over budget! That would be fair comment if the overspend weren't the result of their list of "desirables" which have since become "essentials"!

We have managed to identify and negotiate the savings required without diluting the scheme and everyone is happy.....full speed ahead....apart from the fact that the Client is now querying our invoice for five hours of the extra time, even though it is clearly for work outside of our original commission.

Despite our success in saving our Clients about £15k and in ensuring that their dreams could be realised on their limited budget....our efforts were valued at less than the £375 (plus VAT) invoiced!

Do other professionals face this challenge, of course not! Now it may be that, because we don't charge the hourly rates of an Accountant or Solicitor, we aren't considered as much of a neccesity...but when was the last time your Accountant saved you £15k?

Another Client rang us recently complaining that we wouldn't instruct a whole bunch of additional work items on his commercial project!

Now, again, you might be of the opinion that we are out of order - until you hear that his building contract is at large and issuing an instruction at this stage will cost him thousands in lost Liquadated and Ascertained Damages AND he doesn't have Planning Permission for what he wants to do!

For what seems like the millionth time, we explained to him that our primary concern is his position - contracturally, financially and with regards Planning. In effect we are trying to save him from himself - yet I get an earful and (once again) questions about why he bothers to pay us!

Would you question why you pay your Solicitor as he stops you getting sued, ripped off or jailed? I think not!

On the other hand, we have recently had a Local Authority Building Control Department express their pleasure that we are involved in a project because the quality of our drawings and specification mean that they're not having to guess how the project is going to be constructed. We have also had a contractor express similar feelings.

It's a strange thing, but I am increasingly becoming convinced that it is clear that all parties to a building project benefit from the involvement of an Architect (especially architecture & design services Ltd - http://www.aandds.co.uk/) but it seems that the Client is often the last to recognise the value.

I was reminded this evening of the Project Manager who, wisely, observed that in order to be considered a great Project Manager you have to been seen to be great at putting out fires - not preventing them!

The challenge always used to be to get the contractor to value you as an Architect - now it appears that our challenge is to persuade our Clients that the benefit of employing us is that they won't always see the problems we solve or pitfalls we steer them clear of!

Welcome

Welcome to our first ever blog!

I thought that a good starting point was to introduce both myself and us, as a practice!

As an RIBA Chartered Practice of Architects, We [architecture & design services ltd] have been based at Parndon Mill in Harlow for the past three years, having previously been based in Epping High Road.

We design carefully composed, innovative buildings and are committed to the idea that a successful building is one which responds thoughtfully, and gracefully to our client's needs and to local conditions.

We enjoy working with our clients to identify their future needs, and developing the brief and the design together. We believe that in working as a team with our clients, statutory authorities and contractors we contribute to producing buildings to be proud of.

I am Mark Cotton and I established architecture & design services ltd five years ago having left Stevenage Borough Council where I was Senior Architect responsible for the delivery of all the Council's capital projects, including new build sports pavillions and various residential projects.

I hope that this blog will develop into a record of our thoughts and observations as a practice on what it is like to be a relatively small architectural practice in a post credit crunch economy - balancing the need to be economically cost effect with the increasing demands of both the Planning and Building Regulations legislative environments

If you fancy taking a peek at our website click here