Thursday, 18 June 2015


From the Guardian,

The 250-page report details five scenarios ranging from a “do minimum” gradual approach, which would take 32 years, to “a full move out” which would mean that parliamentarians can no longer work in the building for six years. This would cost an estimated £3.9bn.

The most expensive option – a rolling programme of work that would allow the palace to continue to function as a seat of government – would expect to cost £5.7bn in capital expenditure but would take 32 years to complete, the report says. Total costs could rise to £7.1bn and take 40 years in the worst-case scenario, an official confirmed.

The slowest option would mean it would be divided into 12 different zones, each renovated in turn with both chambers being closed for between two and four years at different times.

A mid-option would see MPs and peers vacate the chambers in turn, at a cost of around £4.4bn.

Sell the old building to the highest bidder, knock down Buckingham Palace and put a new parliament there and lease the land around it to developers. Might even make a profit on the deal.


A K Haart said...

They could include accommodation too - put an end to the second home fiddles.

Ed P said...

As they have little to do, thanks to EU control, why not just knock it down and build something more useful (like a brothel)?

Woodsy42 said...

Isn't there a mostly unused parliament building in Strasburg, couldn't they borrow it for a while?

Lola said...

The article says:

"Driving the need for modernisation are the threat of fire, water damage decay and dilapidation, it says, and the combined effect of pollution and lack of maintenance, which have caused decay to the stonework.
The roofs are leaking, gutters and internal plumbing regularly fail, and there has been extensive damage to the Pugin-designed interiors, the report says. There is asbestos throughout the building..."

Or to put another spin on it, MP's, by a combination of neglect and mis-management have written down the value of their dedicated offices. Sort of parallel to what they have done to the whole country.

Ralph Musgrave said...

I know the House of Commons is of historical interest, but £4-7bn to preserve it is LUDICROUS. It should be knocked down and a modern replacement erected. That would cost a fraction of the above sort of figures.

Bayard said...

"That would cost a fraction of the above sort of figures."

Not if the government are running the project.