Agecroft Fire Station Project

3D Renderings For Agecroft Fire Station

Click and drag the image to rotate and use the scroll wheel or trackpad to zoom. For best results view on a desktop/laptop browser.

Descriptor Feedback
Problem Definition and Analysis – identification of asset management and energy use issues within the building supported by evidence. The submission is strong is identifying the context of the site and asset use and performance issues. The descriptions are well laid out and clearly state the nature of the current site and building.
Development of Appropriate Strategy – Strategy led by evidence and clear rationale, assumptions clearly defined. The strategy is led from the GMFRS strategy and is clearly laid out. Wider contextual issues for public bodies from a policy perspective are well laid out and demonstrate a sound knowledge of the key issues.
Selection of Options – identification of appropriate options linked to strategy, justification, investigation of other potential approaches The options with regards to asset use are very well explored and clearly supported by very good visual representations of the space. The technical options are well investigated and justification is clear. Some more detail on potential risks for the technical options could have improved this section a little.
Use of secondary sources – referenced use of appropriate sources, robust sources used, wide range of sources The resources used are well referenced and clearly laid out in the bibliography. There is a reasonable mix of sources, but they are a little bit limited overall.
Supporting elements Appropriateness and effectiveness of Cost Plan and Maintenance Plan The cost plan and supporting maintenance plan are clear. There is particular strength on the contribution of different external funding sources, such as the FiTs. Some additional evidence for costs could have improved this slightly.
Structure of report – good linkages between sections, clear decision making process and logical structure through report The report is clear and logical. It makes good use of introduction and summary sections to help the reader. Issues are well grouped and clearly dealt with in a logical order. Decisions are clearly justified.
Clarity and presentation – well laid out, use of media resources to help reader, clear, effectiveness of communication The submission is particularly strong in its use of visual materials to support the discussion. A 3D model is used to discuss physical changes as well as provide a context for technical options. There are some small typographical and grammatical errors, but they are minor and do not detract from the work in general.
Overall summary feedback The submission is very strong in terms of structure and strategy. Information is clearly presented and the context of the building, site and performance of the asset very clearly established. In terms of the policy background and under standing of the funding context, a considerable amount of research is on show. The technical sections are robust and reasonably well-researched, but some additional understanding of some of the technical risks for some improvements would have improved the submission.
James Swann