Transcription

DAVIES BLOCK FEASIBILITY STUDYAUSTIN HOSPITAL HEIDELBERGAddendum to Feasibility Study ReportPrepared for Austin Health by DesignInc Melbourne Pty LimitedM-15027 07.07.2016 FinalDesignInc MELBOURNE PTY LIMITED ArchitectsLEVEL 2, GPO BUILDING, 350 BOURKE STREETMELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 AUSTRALIATELEPHONE 613 9654 9654FACSIMILE 613 9654 4321EMAIL itecture Urban Design Interiors

CONTENTS1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31.1 Executive Summary 31.2 Brief 31.3 Reference Material 31.4 Recommendation 32.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE 42.1 Introduction 42.2 Davies Building Review Team 42.3 Methodology 42.4 Key Considerations 42.5 Next Steps 43.0 SITE CONTEXT 53.1 Existing Precinct 53.2 Building Background 53.3 Town Planning and Heritage Considerations 63.4 Building Parts 64.0 SCENARIOS 74.1 Scenario Summary 74.2 Cost Summary 7Detailed Scope 74.2 Scenario B1 – Base Building – Reinstate Open Balconies 84.3 Scenario B2 – Base Building – Reinstate Infill Envelope to Balconies 104.4 Scenario C1 – Fitout – Storage 124.5 Scenario C2 – Fitout – Office/Office 144.6 Scenario C3 – Fitout – Office/Academic 164.7 Scenario C4 – Fitout – Lab/Lab 184.8 Scenario C5 – Fitout – Lab/Office 205.10 Scenario D – Hazardous Materials removal and Demolition 22DesignInc Melbourne Pty Ltdacn:abn:005 644 14657 448 891 837Level 2, GPO Building, 350 Bourke StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000 Australiap: 61 3 9654 9654 61 3 9654 4321e: [email protected]: www.designinc.com.auf:DesignInc Melbourne Pty Ltd is owned by:Christon Batey–Smith,Stephen Roland Webb &Rohan Farquar Wilson.We are an association of independentpractices with national offices in Adelaide,Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.2Architecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au07.07.2016 M-15027 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rights

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.1 Executive SummaryIn April 2015, Austin Health commissioned DesignInc, to report on theopportunities and challenges that may be encountered when re–usingthe Davies Building on the Austin Campus in Studley Road, Heidelberg.Two main options are being considered for the Davies Building; Re–Use the building to accommodatethe future needs of Austin Health, or Demolish the building to make wayfor potential uses on the same area of the site.This report provides no comment on the potential futureuses of any building other than the Davies Building.The Austin Health Strategic Site Masterplan definedthe preferred option for this part of the site as:»» TTR Buildings incorporating Education and Research to south ofsite (demolishing Kronheimer, Davies and Bowen longer term)In order to continue with the masterplan work,Austin Health requested this report.To provide a basis for the cost analysis, this report hastherefore defined possible potential future uses as:»» Store»» Office/Administration»» Academic/EducationThe potential fitout options have been reported andcosted in broad terms for discussion only.»» Research1.2 BriefFor the purposes of this report, the amenities works such astoilets, tea rooms and circulation access are included broadlyunder Base Building Works. Hazardous Materials removal hasalso been incorporated into the base building scenarios.DesignInc attended a meeting with the Department ofHealth & Human Services, Austin Health and Lovell Chen on14th May 2015, where a discussion around future needswas had, and the following priorities were highlighted;1.3 Reference Material»» Identify immediate health and safety issues.Reports supplied by Austin Health:»» Identify and quantify the limitations of the existingbuilding fabric in achieving potential future uses.»» Austin Health Strategic Site Masterplan Report FinalDraft. Prepared in June 2012 by Billard Leece»» The building should be treated in two parts whererefurbishment uses are considered;»» Review of the Austin Hospital Heritage Assessment.Prepared in March 2015 by Lovell Chen1. The original main brick building2. The original (infilled) balconies and later brick annex.»» Develop a cost plan summary based on the discussed options.»» Maximise land use due to the site area constraints.1.4 RecommendationThis report demonstrates that the cost of redeveloping theDavies Building will require substantial financial investment.The current condition of the building is very poor and will limitthe redevelopment opportunities and aspirations outlined in theAustin Health Strategic Site Masterplan Report. The estimatedcost of the proposed uses is high considering the expectedquality of the built outcomes that may reasonably be achievedin the confined spaces. The outcome is likely to be in conflictwith the aims of the masterplan and service requirements.Following initial investigations and recommendations, Austinhealth have subsequently commenced the works requiredto secure the building. These works are now complete.The work required to bring the existing building up to basic currentstandards is considerable and the money spent on this scopealone will significantly diminish the funds available to spend on theprogrammatic and strategic aims of the Strategic Site Masterplan.Within the context of the Strategic Site Masterplan, andin considering the aims Austin Health as nominated in thatreport, DesignInc considers that demolition of the building mayrepresent the best opportunity to achieve those aims. It isrecommended that in line with the Lovell Chen report, historicalrecording of the building be undertaken prior to any future worksto the building and demolition if and when that occurs.»» Austin Life Sciences Feasibility Study. Preparedin 2011 by Vincent Chrisp Architects»» Part 5 Asbestos Audit. Date and origin unknownDrawings supplied by Austin Health:»» Provide options integrated with existing surroundings.»» Services Infrastructure Master Plan Rev 01. Prepared inSeptember 2014 by Lehr Consultants International»» Maintain busy service road providing access to three loading docks.»» Existing Floor Plans»» Heritage Overlay PlanM-15027 07.07.2016 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rightsArchitecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au3

2.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE2.1 Introduction2.3 MethodologyIn April 2015 DesignInc were invited by Austin Health to investigatethe feasibility of either re–using the existing Davies Building onthe Studley Rd, Heidelberg Campus or demolish the building.Strategic Site Masterplan2.2 Davies Building Review TeamSite VisitsHertitage ReportDraft ReportsThe consultant team:DesignInc MelbourneArchitectsWood & Grieve (WGE)Services Structural EngineersCertisBuilding SurveyorsPlan CostQuantity SurveyorsPart 5 Asbestos AuditStakeholders:Issued forServices Infrastructure MPAustin HealthAustin Health reviewDesignInc peer reviewExisting Floor PlansDepartment of Healthand Human ServicesFinal ReportThe Department of Health and Human Services Representatives:Deanne LeaverManager, Property CapitalProjects & Service PlanningMonique BelliSenior Project Manager - NWMetropolitan ProjectsAustin Health Representatives:Ian LeongDirector, Capital Works& InfrastructureJohn WardManager, Scope & PlanningDesignInc Representatives:Rohan WilsonDirectorSally BrincatSenior AssociateWood & Grieve (WGE) RepresentativesAnthony SquirePrincipalCertis Representative:Brett TregenzaBuilding SurveyorCETEC Representative:Tim CallinanSouthern Region ServicesManager/Senior Consultant2.4 Key ConsiderationsIn reviewing possible future re–use options, the conditionof the existing building was considered as the basis fordecision making. The consultant team quickly identified themany limitations and challenges that would be encounteredin any works that retained the existing building fabric.The size and layout of the existing building, being long and narrowalso represents significant challenges in re-use or adaptability of thebuilding. Whilst daylight access would be considered reasonable,the type and nature of the likely required spaces would beextremely difficult to accommodate within the existing footprint.The main considerations in the study of the Davies Building were;»» What are the aims and aspirations of Austin Health asidentified in the Strategic Site Site Masterplan?»» Is the size and current layout of the DaviesBuilding suitable to achieve those aims?»» Does the location and proximity of the Davies Building to otherspresent opportunities or restirctions for adaptive re-use possibilities?»» How suitable is the existing structure for adaptability?»» What would be the cost of adapting the buildingto meet current building standards?Plan Cost Representative:Simon GrimesHeritage Overlay PlanDirector»» How suitable are the internal spaces to achieve thehealthcare delivery and service needs of Austin Health?»» How suitable are the existing services on theAustin, Studley Rd campus for adaptability?4Architecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.auThe building is in a very dilapidated state, requiringextensive intervention at a basic level, including;2.5 Next Steps»» NCC upgrades including DDA Access, Fire Rating reviewand Section J compliance – Refer Appendix 1.Following review of this report and in conjunction withstrategic planning within Austin Health, the optionspresented in this report will require the following;»» Services upgrades including a complete replacement of theend of life services and new roof based plant areas due to thenon-compliant basement plant areas – Refer Appendix 2.»» Detailed cost benefit analysis of any identifiedadaptive re-use options against the aims and potentialoutcomes of the Strategic Site Masterplan.»» Structural upgrades including re-building balconies,external stairs, roof and extensive integrity checking ofinternal timber structures. – Refer Appendix 2.Where the outcome of a cost benefit analysis determines thatone of the fitout options contained herein is worth pursuingfurther, the following additional work would be required;»» Hazardous Materials removal including, lead paint, asbestos,biological and vermin hazards. – refer Appendix 3.»» Re-work of the Strategic Masterplan to incoporatethe amended aims for the campusThe costs associated with a redevelopment incorporatingthe existing building would put a considerable strain on afuture project budget. The proposed programme of spaceswould be highly compromised as a result and it is unlikelythat the aims of the Strategic Site Masterplan and servicerequirements would be satisfactorily fulfilled in this location.»» Detailed development and scoping of worksThe resultant restrictions that are likely to be encounteredwould severley impede the potential for Austin Health to deliveron the strategic public health and research facilities that havebeen identified for this campus and the portion of the site.»» Staging of works within the strategic framework of Austin Health»» Detailed development of a cost plan for budgeting»» Detailed planning, compliance and constructiondocuments to support the intended outcomesReviewing the content of the Austin Life Sciences Feasibility Study itquickly becomes clear that a building the size of the Davies Building(1500m2) is entirely inadequate to provide the building areasidentified in that report (14,500m2). This factor alone suggests thatadaptive re-use of this building is an innappropriate response.07.07.2016 M-15027 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rights

BURGUNDY STUPPEREMERGENCYONLY tinSchoolMarionDrummondBuildingMEMelbourneBrain CentreMENTRYTowerLanceTownsendBuildingMFo aire n Eco nur trytHaroldStokesBuildingTennisCourtSKitchenb3.2 Building BackgroundThe Davies Building, sited within the Heidelberg AustinHospital Precinct, was constructed in 1889–90 and retainsa recognisably 19th century form and building eering &Building ServicesStudentQuartersBioresourcesCentreVehicles can accessMain Entry Forecourtvia Studley RdP Staff Car ParkPublic access buildingsreetAerial Photograph(Permit Parking)NHospital Infrastructure buildingsWalkwaysMain building entrancesOne way trafficP ParkingMediHotelONJCWCENTRYHoDaviesBuildingChild CareCentreEYOlivia Newton-JohnCancer andWellness CentreKronheimer BuildingDavies BuildingdRCentral StoreBowenCentreaPDLBikeParkingNO ACCESSBoilerHouseAUSTIN MAINENTRYLoadingDockSTUSecureExtended OccupationalTherapyEdwardWilsonBuildingPThe site is steeply sloped from West to East, affording largeareas of the site excellent views to the East. The Davies Buildingis situated towards the centre of the site close to the southernboundary and enjoys some views to the east, although nowlimited somewhat by the ONJCWC. The immediate neighboursto the Davies Building are a mix of 1990s brick low rise buildings,on-grade carparking, and various loading docks and servicesareas to the west of the main clinical areas of the hospital.AustinHosAcutePsychiatricUnitExperience from previous projects confirms that prevailingwesterly winds will impact the air intakes of the ONJCWC andany potential future uses considered for the Davies Building orsurrounding area must take this into account when locatingnew plant, exhaust and fume stacks as appropriate.SShuttle bus pick-up pointBus StopPatient drop-off pointBus RoutePublic telephoneDIREOF S CTIONITEFALLNNSite MapThe current condition of the Davies Building is architecturally poor,with the structure of the main building considered to be in reasonablecondition and all services assessed at, or near to, end of life.M-15027 07.07.2016 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rightsMulti LevFEE PAYAPalThe Austin Campus in Studley Road, Heidelberg is a mix of historicalbuildings dating back to 1889, and new buildings with the most recentlarge intervention being the Olivia Newton John Cancer and WellnessCentre, completed in 2012–2013. As with all modern hospital sitesit is in constant flux and developments of all scales are ongoing tomaintain the relevance and currency of the services provided within.Apit3.1 Existing PrecinctMARTIN STPedestrian FootbridgePOWLETT STRDBERGBus Route 513: Eltham Stn – Glenroy StnBus Route 551: La Trobe Uni – Heidelberg StnBus Route 903: Altona – MordiallocHEIDEL3.0 SITE CONTEXTWide balconies were added in 1912– while part of the building’ssignificant early history, they have since had their lace iron-workremoved and been enclosed with thin cladding materials.Poormaintenance has led to considerable dilapidation of the building fabric,including the roof, guttering and windows. Plant matter has begun toinfiltrate the envelope in many areas and pests and vermin are evidentthroughout all levels. The overall result is that the original architecturalquality and significance of the building has been largely lost.Bus Route 513: Eltham Stn – Glenroy StnBus Route 551: La Trobe Uni – Heidelberg StnBus Route 903: Altona – MordiallocArchitecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au5

3.0 SITE CONTEXT3.3 Town Planning and Heritage ConsiderationsThe March 2015 Review of the Austin Hospital HeritageAssessment, completed by Lovell Chen consolidated the previousreports completed over many years going back to 1997.The recommendations of that report are to reduce the extent of theHeritage Overlays that apply to the entire site to include only thespecific buildings that are considered significant for one reason oranother. The Davies Building is recommended for inclusion in theDraft Incorporated Plan as the subject of Heritage Overlay HO63.The proposed incorporation of the Davies Building into this overlayis included with a caveit of sorts, which recognises that there maybe circumstances where demolition of the building is consideredvital to the ongoing development of the Austin Health offering.The 2015 Lovell Chen report recognises that ‘works required tobring this building up to a standard which would meet contemporaryhospital requirements would be substantial and potentially clashwith heritage imperitives and expectations’. The report goes on tosay that the proposed Draft Incorporated Plan for HO63 should notethat ‘demolition of the Davies Building would be permit exempt’,meaning that the heritage overlay exists to serve as a reminder of thehistorical significance, and that any development of the site wouldfirst require extensive recording of the building in it’s current state.Level 1Given the dilapidated state of the building it is evidentthat most of the original features, particularly the lace ironwork around the balconies are lost, and this is referencedon a number of occasions in the Lovell Chen report.It is worth noting that at the time of finalising this report, BanyuleCity Council are yet to endorse the recommendations of the 2009or 2015 report and the entire Heidelberg site is still covered bythe original H062 and H063 overlays. Within those overlays thereis no direct reference to the Davies Building however the intentof the Draft Incorporated Plans, and any reference to the DaviesBuilding inferred has been the basis for the work in this report.3.4 Building PartsFor the purpose of this report, the original building andbalcony areas are treated seperately. Base building worksare therefore split into two scenarios and described as:»» Reinstate the original open balconies to the circa 1890 state.N»» Reinstate the balconies to their infilled statewith reconstructed flat floor area.Basement & Ground Floor6Architecture Urban Design Interiors 7.07.2016 M-15027 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rights

4.0 SCENARIOS4.2 Cost Summary4.1 Scenario SummaryAt a meeting with the Department of Health and HumanServices, Austin Health and Lovell Chen on 14 May 2015it was agreed that the following categories of workwere appropriate for discussion in this report:Scenario»» Base Building / Hazardous Material removalNo. CategoryOutcomeBroad ScopeBase Building(Stage 2)B.1Hazardous Materials removaland reinstate Balconies tooriginal open conditionRemove all hazardous materials, make goodand achieve minimum BCA compliance 6.92mHazardous Materials removaland reinstate infill envelopeto balcony extentRemove all hazardous materials, make goodand achieve minimum BCA compliance 8.34mBase Building /Haz Mat removalScenario B»» FitoutB.2»» Hazardous Material removal / DemolitionFitout /Demo(Stage 3)Estimated TotalEnd Cost (TEC)Cost RangeThe costing scenarios have been developed using thesecategories and the implied scope of works has resulted in thefollowing broad cost centres. The scope for each scenariois briefly described in the table at right, and in more detailbelow, and has informed the cost plan - refer Appendix 4.Scenario CCosts for each fitout scenario are expressed as a range totake into account which base building option applies. For fitoutscenario C1-C5 the costs shown are cumulative and includethe costs shown for either B1/B2 base building scenario.C.1Storage OnlyAchieve BCA compliance for use as medium term storage only 6.92 - 8.34m 0.98m 7.90m - 9.33mC.2Office/OfficeEntirely office based accommodation withancillary spaces. Achieve BCA compliance 6.92 - 8.34m 4.29m 11.21m - 12.63mOffice/AcademicMixed use accommodation with ancillaryspaces. Achieve BCA compliance 6.92 - 8.34m 4.29m 11.21m - 12.63mLaboratory/LaboratoryEntirely laboratory and support spaces withancillary spaces. Achieve BCA compliance 6.92 - 8.34m 8.56m 15.48m - 16.90mLaboratory/OfficeMixed use accommodation with ancillaryspaces. Achieve BCA compliance 6.92 - 8.34m 6.85m 13.77m - 15.20mHazardous Materials removal, andfull building demolition - clean siteHistorically record the building and safely remove all hazards,building elements and clean the site ready for redevelopment 1.22m 1.22mC.3C.4Fitout(following eitherScenario B.1 or B.2)C.5Costs shown throughout this report are TotalEnd Costs (TEC) and exclude;»» Consultants FeesScenario DD.1»» DisbursementsHazardousmaterials removaland Demolition»» Client costs»» FFE»» ITDetailed Scope»» Supply authority and headworks chargesA. Secure the building»» GSTThese works are now complete.Refer to Appendix 4 for further breakdown and totals, including;»» Total Building Cost (TBC),Base Building andHaz Mat B1Base Building andHaz Mat B2Haz Mat andDemolition D1 6.92m 8.34m 1.22m»» Total Construction Cost (TCC)»» Total Project Cost (TPC)B. Base Building and Hazardous Materials removalHazardous Materials removal and BCA compliance works, including toilet,circulation and envelope upgrades are accounted for in this scope. A DDAcomplaint lift would be required in all fitout options and this work is thereforeconsidered base building works. The implications of any base building variancesrequired by the fitout options do not form part of the scope of this report.C. Fitout ScenariosFitout C1Fitout C2Fitout C3Fitout C4Fitout C5 7.90m - 9.33m 11.21m - 12.63m 11.21m - 12.63m 15.48m - 16.90m 13.77m - 15.20mEach fitout option has been broadly costed to include reasonablescope of works for each type. Further detailed development of fitoutoptions would be required to provide more detailed costing.D. Hazardous Materials removal and DemolitionPrior to any demolition works, the Hazardous Materials wouldneed to be permanently removed from the building.M-15027 07.07.2016 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rightsArchitecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au7

4.0 SCENARIOS4.2 Scenario B1 – Base Building –Reinstate Open BalconiesArchitecture – Refer Appendix 5 for existing conditions reportThis scenario includes hazardous Material removal as part of thescope, followed by base building works to reinstate the originalopen balconies. The base building scope includes minimum BCAcompliance works to toilets, circulation and envelope (section J)upgrades. A new lift would also be required as part of this scenario.Compliance – Refer Appendix 1 for existing conditions report»» A minimum of Type A construction will need tobe achieved with the base building works.»» Door widths are inadequate to meet compliancewith DDA provisions and will require widening.»» Existing stairs, exit doors and widths of travel paths willrequire upgrading, including the height of handrails to all stairswhich require increasing to meet minimum compliance.»» Glazing throughout will require upgrading tomeet minimum current standards.Services – Refer Appendix 2 for existing conditions reportElectrical»» Provide a new Electrical connection to the campus system.A new zone for services infrastructure will be required.N»» Replace the main switchboard (MSB), and extend theexisting submains to a suitable new location.existing balconyheritage facade»» Install a new Distribution Board to serve each level andreplace the existing switchboards throughout.Ground Floor Plan (Scale 1:200)»» Upgrade all light fixtures.lab»» Upgrade emergency lighting and connect to thecomputer monitored campus system.breakout / collabmultipurpose»» The fire detection system will be adequate as thebase–building system. However, future fitout shouldinclude the replacement of all detectors.»» A new OM4 fibre and terminated within a new rack shouldbe provided from the ONJCWC data centre on Level 7.officeback of houseBasement Plan (Scale 1:200)»» No allowance for Security/Access control ismade for the base building scope.8Architecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au07.07.2016 M-15027 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rights

4.0 SCENARIOSMechanical»» Provide new Mechanical connection to the campus system.A new zone for services infrastructure will be required.»» Wood & Grieve (WGE) would advise (pending confirmation offlowrates) to utilize the campus chilled and heating hot waterinfrastructure and install a series of CHW/HHW fan coil units tosupply the building. The new system would include a series of heatexchangers and pumps located in the basement plant–room. Toiletareas would be ventilated with a dedicated toilet exhaust system.Hydraulic»» Install new fire hydrants and hose reel system.»» Replace the water reticulation as part of the base building upgrades.»» A new hot water unit (hot water calorifier) system is required.»» Replace the gas reticulation as part of the base building upgrades.Structure – Refer Appendix 2 for existing conditions report»» All external stairs to be demolished and replaced.»» All timber decking/joists to be removed and replaced.NGround Floor Level»» Eastern timber veranda floor to be re–supported with newload–bearing wall. Potentially half of existing floor joists, and fullreplacement of timber flooring in corridors will be required.First Floor Levelexisting balconyheritage facadeFirst Floor Plan (Scale 1:200)office»» Potentially half of existing floor joists, and full replacementof timber flooring in corridors will be required.»» Entire balcony floor structure appears to be structurallycompromised. Balcony to be demolished and the buildingstripped back to its original façade line OR the existingstructure. Expect (say 50%) of floor and ground floorwall structural members will require replacement.labbreakout / collabmultipurposeHygiene – Refer Appendix 3 for existing conditions reportRoof LevelHazardous materials removal to be completed as part ofthese base building works and are included below.»» All existing roofing to be replaced.Cost Summary – Refer Appendix 4»» Expect (say 50%) of timber framing will require replacement.Scenariom2 rateArea m2TotalB1 4,6411500 6,921,000back of house 6,921,000M-15027 07.07.2016 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rightsArchitecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au9

4.0 SCENARIOS4.3 Scenario B2 – Base Building –Reinstate Infill Envelope to BalconiesArchitecture – Refer Appendix 5 for existing conditions reportThis scenario includes hazardous Material removal as part ofthe scope, followed by base building works to reinstate theinfill balconies. The base building scope includes minimum BCAcompliance works to toilets, circulation and envelope (section J)upgrades. A new lift would also be required as part of this scenario.Compliance – Refer Appendix 1 for existing conditions report»» A minimum of Type A construction will need tobe achieved with the base building works.»» Door widths are inadequate to meet compliancewith DDA provisions and will require widening.»» Existing stairs, exit doors and widths of travel paths willrequire upgrading, including the height of handrails to all stairswhich require increasing to meet minimum compliance.»» Glazing throughout will require upgrading tomeet minimum current standards.Services – Refer Appendix 2 for existing conditions reportElectrical»» Provide a new Electrical connection to the campus system.A new zone for services infrastructure will be required.N»» Replace the main switchboard (MSB), and extend theexisting submains to a suitable new location.existing balconyheritage facade»» Install a new Distribution Board to serve each level andreplace the existing switchboards throughout.Ground Floor Plan (Scale 1:200)»» Upgrade all light fixtures.lab»» Upgrade emergency lighting and connect to thecomputer monitored campus system.breakout / collabmultipurpose»» The fire detection system will be adequate as thebase–building system. However, future fitout shouldinclude the replacement of all detectors.»» A new OM4 fibre and terminated within a new rack shouldbe provided from the ONJCWC data centre on Level 7.officeback of houseBasement Plan (Scale 1:200)»» No allowance for Security/Access control ismade for the base building scope.10Architecture Urban Design Interiors www.designinc.com.au07.07.2016 M-15027 Copyright DesignInc. Copyright in this document and the concepts it represents are reserved to DesignInc. No authorized use or copying permitted. All rights reserved. Some of the incorporated images and concepts maybe subject to third party copyright and/or moral rights

4.0 SCENARIOSMechanical»» Provide new Mechanical connection to the campus system.A new zone for services infrastructure will be required.»» WGE would advise (pending on confirmation of flowrates)

» Maximise land use due to the site area constraints. . September 2014 by Lehr Consultants International » Existing Floor Plans » Heritage Overlay Plan . Certis Building Surveyors Plan Cost Quantity Surveyors The