Viewing Shelter by Laura Satterthwaite

Projects Through Collaboration Pro+Cols 03: Viewing shelter

Special thanks to: LOCH LOMOND & THE TROSSACHS NATIONAL PARK: Dermot Smyth - Architect Thom Ledingham - Planner Stephen Rudd - Structural Engineer

THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS: Paula Baker - Site Manager Becky Austin - Project Supervisor Kat Jones - Line Manager Fiona Weir - Landscape Architect Anna Pugh - Visitor Experience Manager

UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE: Derek Hill - Project Director

Authors: Victoria Scott Laura Satterthwaite Karolina Brozynska Chong Kar Mun

Victoria Scott FIRST CONTACT

Laura Satterthwaite

Karolina Brozynska

Chong Kar Mun

L IST OF C ONTENT S CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 BRIEF 1.3 LLTNP 1.4 RSPB

CHAPTER 3 - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 9 11 13 13

CHAPTER 2 - SITE APPRAISAL 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE BRIEF MEETING 1 SITE VISIT MEETING 2

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

MEETING 3 MEETING 4 MEETING 5 MEETING 6 FINAL SITE MEETING 7

CHAPTER 5 - INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS 29 31 33 35 37

CHAPTER 4 - TECHNICAL STRATEGY 19 21 23 25

4.1 4.2 4.3

MEETING 8 THE LIGHTHOUSE EXHIBITION FINAL MEETING 9

41 43 45

5.1

INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER 6 - SKETCH APPENDIX 6.1 APPENDIX

1.1

INTRODUCTION

‘Projects Through Collaboration’ is an optional class that introduces students to aspects of live projects, allowing exploration and understanding of the architect’s responsibilities within the construction realm. It hopes to bring awareness of the role of an architect as designer, communicator and administrator. The class also aspires to provide the students with department initiatives and outputs which requires strategies relating to programming, scheduling, funding and advertising. Students were asked to state their manifesto as part of the class introduction to identify each individual’s personal interests and aspirations for the class. The Glasgow-based industry collaborators were then presented alongside their projects, each with its own unique brief of different settings, scales and ideologies. The projects ranged from community live build projects to masterplan proposals. Based on each individual’s manifestos, the class was then divided into 6 groups of 4 to 5 students. Each group were allocated to a project based on the groups’ interest. This initiated the collaboration between client and students in order to enhance the student’s educational experience and to receive help that could potentially be beneficial to the collaborators. This case study focuses on a collaboration with Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The design journey provides an opportunity to understand the process of a real life project; from the initial meeting with clients to the proposal of a live build scheme. The study then concludes with the final phase of the collaboration. The conclusion will provide an insight into our overall thoughts on the success of the project and what the collaborators could have done differently to optimise the learning opportunities the class provides. Viewing Shelter | Page 9

Scottish Scenic Routes Map

1.2

BRIEF

Inspired by the National Tourist Routes programme in Norway, the Scottish Scenic Routes initiative seeks to develop a uniquely Scottish model to enhance, promote and develop its international appeal and reputation. Whilst a National Strategy is being developed, a series of pilot projects have been undertaken and completed to test the ideas behind the initiative.

Falls of Falloch “Woven Sound”

The three winning designs have been installed at popular visitor destinations across Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park at Inveruglas, the Falls of Falloch, and Loch Lubnaig. A fourth student grant project was then completed by Strathclyde Students as part of their Advanced Architectural Design thesis called The Lookout.

Inveruglas “An Ceann Mor”

Loch Voil “The Lookout”

The collaboration will design, construct and install a bespoke bird hide, situated on an RSPB site at Gartocharn within Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park. The project will form part of the Scottish Scenic Routes Initiative in conjunction with the Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park, with £5000 funding assistance from the Scottish Government. Viewing Shelter | Page 11

1.3

LLTNP

1.4

RSPB

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) were the client contact for the project, as well as owning planning authority for all developments within the National Park. The National Park has recently developed view points as part of a journey around Loch Lomond to break up the road trip as well as nurture the local talent of Scotland.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) are the land owner and end user of the Viewing Shelter. The RSPB is a charity with over one million members, founded in 1889 and run by a council of volunteers. The volunteers work thousands of hours per year directly for the birds and wildlife, and are the charityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest source of income.

The Scottish Scenic Routes Initiative is funded by the Scottish Government to allow travellers to capture the best vantage points near the road network, complementing the surrounding landscape. The previous four Scottish Scenic Routes have been

RSPB Scotland Loch Lomond is situated on the south east shores of the Loch, and have managed the site in partnership with Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park alongside Scottish Natural Heritage since 2012.

extremely successful in promoting the National Park.

Site manager Paula Baker was part of the design team from the offset, providing a unique perspective on what the shelter could provide to engage with the wildlife. The RSPB are also providing car parking and a new visitor hub on the site which will be open at weekends from April to October to further encourage people to visit the site.

Architect Dermot Smyth acted as the principal collaborator for LLTNP, working alongside the Strathclyde students to deliver the Viewing Shelter project. With experience from the previous Scottish Scenic Routes projects, LLTNP were to provide the architectural knowledge behind a successful viewpoint within Loch Lomond.

Viewing Shelter | Page 13

P R OJEC T TIMEL INE

3_02_2016 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING

+ 11_11_2015 INITIAL RSPB MEETING

PREAPP

25_11_2015 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

20_01_2016 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

03_02_2016 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

17_02_2016 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

02_03_2016 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

P+

P+ 4_11_2015 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

18_11_2015 INITIAL SITE VISIT

09_12_2015 LIGHTHOUSE MEETING PRESENTATION

29_01_2016 RSPB MEETING INITIAL IDEAS

& COSTINGS

12_02_2016 RSPB MEETING DESIGN UPDATES

APP

until 14_03_2016 THE APPLICATION for planning permission should be delivered not later than 14th of March

24_02_2016 SITE VISIT

02_03_2016 MEETING WITH ENGINEER

01_05_15 BUYING MATERIALS

23_03_2016 FINAL MEETING / LIGHTHOUSE EXHIBITION

P+

16_03_2016 PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

30_03_2016 FINAL PRO+COL CLASS MEETING

8_05_2016 CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

16_05 - 20_05_2016 [WEEK 2 IW] TRANSPORT TO THE SITE

P+ 04_05_2016 CASE STUDIES SUBMISSION

09_05 - 13_05 2016 [WEEK 1 IW] BUILDING IN WORKSHOP

SITE APPRAISAL

S e p t e m b er - Dec emb er 2 0 1 5

Pro+Col Collaborative Teams Breakdown

P+ INITIAL RESPO N S E

TO THE B RI EF

2.1

4/11/2015 STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY

We were all enthusiastic about the prospect of

Following the distribution of the collaborative projects, the

being involved in a live build, especially with the

Strathclyde students began to prepare for their first meeting

success of ‘The Lookout’ designed and built by

with the RSPB and LLTNP. The students researched the two

Strathclyde students the previous year. I was slightly

establishments in depth to gain a deeper understanding

confused by the collaboration with LLTNP as they

of the collaborators. As part of the ‘Projects Through

were not specifically an architects firm.

Collaboration’ introductory class, the students were asked to photograph six images to take along to the meeting in order to introduce themselves and demonstrate their initial responses to the brief.

I thought that from the brief it was also slightly unclear in defining the role of the RSPB within the project, as LLTNP had defined themselves as the primary collaborators.

The students looked into the Scottish Scenic Routes Initiative, as the project would be an addition to the scheme. The programme was inspired by the Scenic Routes of Norway, therefore some research into the Norwegian scheme was beneficial. This included research into the architects BIOTOPE who primarily design Norwegian bird hide schemes. This allowed the students to gather precedents as an initial concept typology.

Viewing Shelter | Page 19

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

1.03.03

Building time restriction as no building can commence during breeding seasons. Be aware that projected time scales must be accurate.

2.00.00 2.00.01

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION Victoria (VS) asked if the hide to be an open shelter or an enclosed space. Paula (PB) said it should be more of an open shelter as there will be a porta cabin type of visitors centre at the start of the walk with refreshments and toilet facilities. This should be more basic.

2.00.02

VS asked what type of scale the hide should be and how many people will be in at any one time. Katherine Jones (KJ) said the park can hold 15 cars so a maximum of 45 people will be on the walk at any time. PB added that they would expect no more than one family to be in the hide at a time. Dermot Smyth (DS) also added that the size and weight restrictions will be clarified via email from LLTNP. The transport of the structure will be arranged by LLTNP and is the same transport used for previous projects.

history to the site and if we want to know more about the history, the RSPB have all the information to give us.

3.00.0 3.00.01 3.00.02 3.00.03 3.00.04

Refined Brief Established from Q+A: Made from as many naturally resourced materials as possible to avoid clashes with the wildlife. To fit around 5 people at any one time To be used as a space to enjoy all wildlife in the area as well as a resting point. Have the ability to move the structure around the site.

4.00.00

Dermot Smyth shows the process video of The Lookout project.

5.00.00

Discussion of 6 photographs as a response to the original brief.

6.00.00

Revision of key meeting dates:

6.00.01

11.11.15 Initial meeting – RSPB office

11.11.15 RSPB Offices, Glasgow

Attendees: Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomand and the Trassachs National Park Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB

2.00.03

Kat Jones (KJ)– Line manager RSPB Fiona (F)- Landscape Architect RSPB Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

2.00.04

KJ asked if there is a way to restrict the cattle from the path. PB said that although methods will be in place to avoid cattle interaction with the path, they will be used to graze the field from time to time. So cattle interaction with the hide will be inevitable.

2.00.05

LS asked what type of maintenance will be provided to the hide, if any. PB confirmed that volunteers will do a patrol of the path to give the area a tidy and make sure there is no loitering in the area. LS added to confirm that they will expect the hide to have muddy footprints and things in the hide. Paula confirmed this and added with it being more of a shelter than an enclosed structure they would expect it to get dirty and almost become part of the landscape.

Laura Satterthwaite(LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska(KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun(CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.01.00

INTRODUCTION TO SITE BY RSPB Key Points Covered:

1.01.01 1.01.02

Our site at south of RSPB site – not as many protected areas or SSSI. Presentation of the proposed pathway through the site that will link with the hide.

1.02.00

Bird Hide:

1.02.01 1.02.02 1.02.03 1.02.04

Client would like the bird hide to move location over time. Starting out close to the car park as only a small portion of the path will be ready. Accessible through all the seasons – flooding in winter. Site topography – view of the whole site from starting point of the walk. Creating a wildlife experience and not just birds. Not actually a bird hide.

1.03.00

Building Aspects:

1.03.01

Exclusive aspect for the community.

1.03.02

Publicise the event. Previous events held by RSPB to increase awareness

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) asked if there any restrictions in terms of materials that could be a danger to the wildlife. PB confirmed that metals with any tar based retardant can be toxic to the animals and to be aware of the wildlife’s interaction with the hide - It will have to be robust. Dermot added that have been a lot of cattle and sheep that charge into the reflective bird hide when they see their own reflection.

2.00.06

2.00.07

2.00.08

23.11.15 Initial site visit & meeting with client – Loch Lomand & Balloch Office 09.12.15 Initial response to site & design sketches – RSPB office 29.01.16 Refined design proposal – RSPB office 12.02.16 Detailed design proposal – RSPB office 09.03.16 Site visit – orientation on site, levels etc. 23.03.16 Final meeting inc. full design drawings & materiality – RSPB office 21.04.16 Design studio exam 04.05.16 Case study submission

VS asked if the hide has to be moved, will it be moved by volunteers who will not necessarily have much structural knowledge. Paula responded saying it will be volunteers but they are volunteers who have great skills and an interest in the RSPB. So the hide should be relatively easy to be moved or disassembled and reassembled but it will not be by ‘unskilled’ people.

LS asked if the RSPB have any preference to how they would like the hide to look. KJ suggested that they would like something very innovative that does not necessarily read as a bird hide. Fiona (F) suggested some precedents for the students to look at such as the work by Tormod Amundsen, who has designed some really interesting structures that break away from your typical expectations of a bird hide and work well simply as a resting spot. PB added that although you can walk the path in about 20 minutes, they would really like people to take about an hour to really experience the landscape and have points along the way to stop and enjoy. The bird hide will be one of those points so the RSPB want it to be a part of the landscape, maybe by taking some sort of organic form. F added that another interesting precedent to look at is James Torrell’s Deer Shelter. The RSPB recently had a similar project on a site in Wallasea. Paula finished the Q+A by explaining that a lot of the RSPB site is manmade so although it is a natural setting and a lot of rare wildlife can be found, a lot of changes have happened deliberately. The wetland came around because the ground was excavated for clay pits and a lot of hydrology has been put in place to control the water around residential areas. There is a lot of

09.05.16 Begin construction of shelter – University of Strathclyde workshop 20.05.16 Shelter completed on campus 23.05.16 Construction on site – Loch Lomand

7.00.00

Species other than birds mentioned:

Blue Bells

Pine Marten

Orchids (semi-rare)

Otters

Fen / fen meadow

Insects 7.00.02 7.00.01

7.00.02

Acronyms:

Rare plants:

NNR: National Nature Reserve

Scottish Dock

INNS: Invasive Non Native Species

Blue Bells

SPA: Special Protection Area

Orchids (semi-rare)

Ramsar: Wetland areas (names after an area where the deeds were signed)

Fen / fen meadow

SSSI: Species of Significant Scientific Interest

Acronyms: NNR: National Nature Reserve INNS: Invasive Non Native Species

Meeting 1 Minutes

SPA: Special Protection Area Ramsar: Wetland areas (names after an area where the deeds were signed) SSSI: Species of Significant Scientific Interest

MEETING 1

2.2 L

11/11/2015 RSPB OFFICE

We all felt that the meeting went well, and

The initial meeting took place on the 11th November

successfully paved the way for the next stages of

2015 within RSPB’s Glasgow office, to discuss the project

the design process. I was enthusiastic about the

in greater depth alongside the collaborative team. The

prospects of designing for all abilities access and

meeting was used to establish the key objectives of the

having the freedom of choosing where to locate

scheme from the RSPB, as well as addressing the role that

the shelter on the site. Although the group felt the

the students would play as part of the collaborative team.

RSPB have a good sense of what can be achieved, I felt that Kat Jones’ desires for the quantity of users

Paula Baker from the RSPB highlighted that their approach

within the shelter are unrealistic in terms of what

to locating the bird hide was to be formed around the

can be constructed within the time frame and the

pathway that is being installed onto the site in October

budget.

2016. This would require the structure to be moved from the initial location to the final destination on completion of the pathway. It was also Paula’s desire to redefine the

There were however some concerns voiced by

structure as a ‘Viewing Shelter’ to promote the wildlife and

myself over the point that no construction can take

surrounding landscape as opposed to just bird species.

place over breeding times on the site. This had to be cross-referenced against the students’ academic

The outcome of the meeting was a more refined brief,

calendar to make sure there will be no issues when

with the aspiration to a design a space for around 5 users

the structure is delivered on site.

to enjoy wildlife and act as a resting point on the journey around the path.

Site Location at Gartocharn Viewing Shelter | Page 21

Site Panoramic View

SITE V ISIT

2.3

Although Paula had huge enthusiasm in showing the group around, not much information was gathered that day due to the weather. This rose concerns as I was worried that we would have to make further trips to the site when the weather was

18/11/2015 GARTOCHARN

The initial site visit took place on the 18th of November. The Strathclyde Students travelled to the in Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park headquarters in Balloch to be briefed by Dermot Smyth, who had also organised transportation to the Gartocharn site.

better, which would take up time that could be spent on the design of the shelter.

The site visit also raised concerns about the movability of the structure for the students. I thought it would be a difficult task to move the structure whilst fully built from one location to another due to the steep changes in site level. This meant that we would therefore have to think of another solution such as disassembly to move the shelter.

On site, Paula guided us around the route for the proposed pathway. Unfortunately, the poor weather conditions prevented the site being shown in full extent, with views of Ben Lomond being blocked due to thick fog causing poor visibility. Moreover, the site was difficult to manoeuvre as a result of the muddy conditions, which rose concerns about how weather conditions could make construction on the site a difficult task. Paula also indicated to where the recently installed car park was in relation to the site, which would be the location for a visitor hub.

Viewing Shelter | Page 23

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

2.02.00

Paula Baker (PB) stated that she was happy with the overall presentation and as a response to the initial design ideas was concerned that the idea of having a fully enclosed shelter may invite unwanted activities if it is too private.

4.04.00

LS pointed out that there was a birds nest in the Loch Voil structure.

4.04.01

PB loved the idea of animals and species interacting with the structure and joked that she would never leave the hide if she could interact with the animals from within the structure. She liked the idea of there being ‘nooks and crannies’ in the hide that could house animals and species.

3.00.00 3.00.01

INDIVIDUAL MEETING (following presentation) PB suggested that the barn on site will not be used in the lead up to the live build of the wildlife hide and it could be used by the students either as a place of construction or more likely as a storage place. The benefits of the barn are that it has a high ceiling and no doors, dry conditions and is on site. If the site was to be used as a construction area, there would either be a considerable amount of travelling to site from Glasgow every day or extra accommodation would need to be in place. The barn would be more useful as storage for the structure as it means it could be constructed a week or so before the live build date, transported to site leaving the workshop clear and allowing time for any unfortunate time restrains.

4.04.02

VS asked if PB would rather the hide was almost camouflaged in its environment to encourage wildlife interaction.

4.04.03

PB stated that the idea of it being camouflaged could be problematic as visitors may not know it is there. She liked the idea of visitors discovering the hide and the discovery being special in some way (whether that is an exciting aesthetic to the hide or a wildlife encounter) and there being a slow pace associated with the hide and the walk in general. PB also added that the suggested number of visitors in the hide at once (one family of 3 or 4) was ideal as it informs the slow pace and keeps the area around the hide peaceful for the wildlife.

PB explained the various publicity events that the RSPB would be holding to launch the new addition to the S.R.I. She explained that there will be a ‘soft launch’ prior to the main launch in June where the local community will get a first look at the new addition. She also mentioned that the local primary school are always keen to be involved in any events with the RSPB and have held fund raising events in the past. (This is something that could be looked into further with DS when looking at the local schools involvement.)

4.05.00

VS asked if there was anything specific the RSPB would like for the next meeting on the 29th of January 2016 which is recorded as a meeting discussing ‘refined design proposals’.

4.05.01

PB responded by saying that the more design ideas the students bring the more feedback the RSPB can issue. There may be some ideas that right away the RSPB know are not suitable and will hopefully be able to reduce the designs down to a few key concepts.

5.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 29.01.16

5.01.00

PB stated that by the following meeting the RSPB would have a landscape appraisal with the designs of the proposed path which would help the students design the hide in harmony with the path.

Derek Hill (DH) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department (only present for presentation) Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB 3.00.02

Laura Satterthwaite(LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska(KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun(CL) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department 3.00.03

Minutes of the Meeting GENERAL OVERVIEW – PRO+COLS PRESENTATION The Strathclyde students gave a presentation reflecting the planning application which will be submitted in January. This covered precedents of the physical design requirements: movability and robustness and looked in depth at the current L.L.T.N.P structures, in particular the budget and the strengths and weaknesses of each design. The presentation also covered analysis of the site and initial design and site responses.

PB seemed very enthusiastic by this approach and said that she would love something that interacts with the wildlife as it is not just a hide to encounter animals and birds.

Karolina Brozynska (KB) responded by saying that the concept was one of 3 ideas that the students had come up with and that they now understood the impracticalities of it.

Attendees:

1.00.00 1.00.01

4.03.01

2.02.01

09.12.15 The Lighthouse, Glasgow

Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

The requirement that will entail the highest possible quality of materials and craftsmanship is the structure.

PB continued by explaining the key dates for the RSPB:    

Construction – end of May 2016 Soft Launch Event – start of June 2016 Launch Event – end of June 2016 Path completion – October 2016

4.00.00 4.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – MEETING VS asked if the proposed sites were areas that Paula and the RSPB had in mind.

2.00.00 2.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – PRO+COLS PRESENTATION Derek Hill (DH) made a point of emphasising the range in scale and budget of the current L.L.T.N.P structures. He asked the students if they had considered the budget of £5000 and what it could realistically deliver.

4.01.02

PB responded by saying that she liked the idea of the orchid field location because it could be seen from the top of the slope leading to the orchid field but also liked the idea of it being hidden in the Bluebell Forest because it could be uncovered by visitors. (Two conflicting approaches which could base the two main design proposals)

2.01.01

Victoria Scott (VS) responded by stating that The Lookout at Loch Voil was the same budget as the new addition and Dermot Smyth (DS) had explained where the budget was spent successfully and not successfully. This information is valuable to prevent making the same mistakes and save the budget where possible.

4.02.00

LS asked if the RSPB had refined their design brief at all and if any more of the initial ideas were problematic.

4.02.01

2.01.02

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) also added that one of the features DS found successful in the Loch Voil structure was the aluminium channels which neatly finished the timber sheet corners and were relatively inexpensive. It is also cost effective to design the structure to fit standard timber sheet sized.

PB responded by saying that the RSPB would like to see a variety of options. The location of the hide will not always be maintained on a daily basis so they would prefer an option that required as little maintenance as possible, i.e. a structure that needs to be opened in the morning and closed at night would not be realistic.

4.03.00

2.01.03

VS summed up by saying that the main fault with the Loch Voil structure was that quality materials were probably not used in the most effective places and that if (and inevitably when) the budget is becoming strained, they would have to decide where they could reduce the quality to save costs.

KB showed PB an initial sketch of an opening in the floor of the hide which let bluebells and other wildlife grow into the hide and asked if this type of design would be feasible or would require too much maintenance.

Meeting 2 Minutes

MEETING 2

2.4

I felt the late noted absence of Dermot from LLTNP was an unprofessional act, leaving the group unable to receive direct design feedback from him. It was also felt that this would then lead to unnecessary additional time spent providing Dermot with the information of the developments from the meeting as it was the last meeting prior to the Christmas break. The existing LLTNP structures proved to be useful for budget and material studies

9/12/2015 LIGHTHOUSE

Following the initial meeting, students gave a presentation to the class at The Lighthouse, in which Paula Baker attended to represent the RSPB. The presentation covered the research and preliminary precedent studies of the existing LLTNP structures to create comparisons in terms of budget, as well as an indepth site analysis of the Gartocharn site. Derek Hill was curious to see if ÂŁ5000 could realistically be delivered by the scheduled construction time in May.

although I was worried that it would be difficult to achieve the expectations of previous structures with the provided budget. L

When Paula suggested the barn as an additional workshop facility, I was relieved in a sense that there is a backup plan for the live build process. The key dates set were clear and achievable, allowing the students to progress with confidence of the future milestones for this project. The design feedback from Paula was positive, giving a clear sense of direction for us and confidence for the design to

Brief Diagram

develop into the next stage.

Paula suggested to the students that they could use the barn on site for a workshop during the live build to save transportation cost. However, the university workshop facilities had been offered for free prior to this and is equipped with the various tools required for timber construction. This raised other concerns due to the restricted size of the LLTNP transport vehicle. The design requirements were outlined by Paula as; requiring minimal maintenance, interaction with wildlife, natural materials and being able to accommodate 3 to 4 people. Viewing Shelter | Page 25

D E SI GN DEV EL OPMENT J a nu a ry - Feb ru a ry 2 0 1 6

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

2.01.02

Becky (B) also added that an insect hotel would create an active element to the shelter that would provide an element that children can be involved in. It was mentioned that the RSPB have insect hotels however they are easy to build and would be particular effective built into the shelter walls.

2.01.03

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) concluded this point by proposing that the local children of the community could even potentially assist in the build of the structure on site by helping to create the insect hotel as a way of engaging the locals with the RSPB site.

2.02.00

PB stated that the initial research into materiality providers was useful, however B&Q will be way too expensive, suggesting the Strathclyde students look into FSC certificate approved timber yards for sourcing materials.

2.03.00

PB went on to discuss the roof element of the design. She was very happy with the idea of a sloped roof and the potential to have a see through element, possibly polycarbonate or plastic to connect the shelter to the trees and leaves above.

2.03.01

DS added to this comment by voicing his reservations about the use of polycarbonate due to the hostile environment and weather conditions that the structure will have to withstand. The lifespan of the product was also queried due to the dirtiness that visitors may experience as it ages as it will be hard to maintain unless it is being constantly cleaned.

2.03.02

LS responded by indicating that there is currently a structure within Rottenrow Gardens on campus close to the meeting venue that is clad in polycarbonate, offering a trip to show the RSPB and LLTNP after the meeting.

2.03.03

PB thought that this would be a good idea. The importance of an open or see through roof was reiterated to connect the structure to what is above in some way. It was also added that the idea of modules that could be added onto in the structure is not as important as there will be no funding for future expansion.

2.04.00

DS suggested that Strathclyde students think about the approach and how a user will access the shelter.

2.04.01

PB furthered this comment by suggesting you approach the back or side of the structure on approach down the path, potentially with the insect hotel attracting people to the shelter. PB also emphasised the requirement for no doors and an open façade to frame the view.

2.04.02

DS added to this by defining the 2 key aspects of the shelter; the main view and the wildlife interaction.

2.05.00

DS suggested that Strathclyde students think about how the structure will meet the ground, and the cost for such fixtures. He added that the main foundation for the shelter will be paving slabs on the ground as it is moving location. DS also added that weight will have to be built into the shelter to assist it fixing to the ground, and further research should be undertaken into sandbags and ballasts underneath seating etc. to assist alongside the self-weight of the shelter. This should therefore be considered within the £5,000 budget.

29.01.16 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Attendees: Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB Becky (B) – Project Supervisor RSPB Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Laura Satterthwaite (LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun (CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.00.01

GENERAL OVERVIEW – DESIGN PROPOSALS PRESENTATION The Strathclyde students gave a presentation reflecting the initial design concepts as a result of the previous meeting outcomes. This took into account all of the information that has been gathered within the pre application document and the site analysis. The presentation introduced the Strathclyde design team members to Becky, who has joined the design team for the RSPB and will be the project supervisor when the structure reaches site. An updated and in-depth timeline was produced to highlight clashes with other university project deadlines for further discussion. The presentation took into account four potential design concepts differentiating in size, materiality and cost for discussion and indicating features to attract wildlife to the structure.

2.00.00 2.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – DESIGN PROPOSALS PRESENTATION Dermot Smyth (DS) commented on the idea of the structure consisting of more than one unit, with the suggestion of potentially creating one structure with several bench type elements leading up to it. DS also reiterated the focus of a ‘resting point’ as part of the journey as opposed to a long stay structure.

2.01.01

Paula Baker (PB) added to the key aspects that DS focused on by emphasising the idea of integrating an element for wildlife within the structure. As the structure is to be moved from the initial site, she added that an insect hotel would be the most effective form of attracting wildlife such as ladybirds and aphids to become a part of the wall.

Meeting 3 Minutes

2.06.00

PB rose concerns regarding the structure triggering any health and safety issues. Further advice was given to look into the CDM regulations via the HSC website to complete any of the necessary checks for the case study.

2.06.01

B added that risk assessments and any forms for construction will need to be looked into and provided before the live build on site.

2.06.02

DS furthered the comments on research to be undertaken by pointing out that fire resistant treatments and coatings need to be accounted for, and that brush applied coatings will be the most cost effective option. It was also mentioned that the coating process should be done within the workshop at the University of Strathclyde to avoid harming any wildlife during the process.

2.07.00

PB went on to discuss materiality in terms of planning. RSPB prefer locally sourced products such as Scottish Larch cladding, and suggested Strathclyde students begin gathering samples. It was also stated that there should be no tropical species of wood. Both the RSPB and LLTNP were keen to make use of the polycarbonate material as the architecture workshop had some to donate which had been left over from a previous project..

2.07.01

DS added to this by stating that colours and types of materiality are unique to each project and are to be discussed during an upcoming meeting with the planner. He also suggested that Strathclyde students should put together photo montages and precedents of materiality for the planning meeting, and samples should be matched against the surroundings of the site before materials are ordered etc. DS also commented that if paint is to be used on the exterior of the shelter, it must be analysed as up to the rigors of the hostile environment in which the shelter is situated as paint normally requires quite regular treatment. Russwood was also mentioned as a contact for good quality Scottish larch, and Dermot will further contact the company in reference to the previous Scenic Routes Initiative ‘Inveruglas’ shelter. In terms of elements such as the seating within the shelter, DS suggested that the Strathclyde students put in the effort to create a tactile seating element using high quality wood as the focal point of the shelter.

3.00.00 3.00.01

VISIT TO THE ROTTENROW GARDENS SHELTER Following the meeting on campus, VS suggested that the group looks in further detail at the existing shelter on the university grounds, in particular the polycarbonate. Due to the adverse weather, elements of the polycarbonate cladding had begun to rip off with the winds. The shelter has also been in place for several months now, which raised concerns in terms of the weathering of the structure.

3.00.02

The RSPB members were disappointed at the weathering of the product in particular, stating that the weathering process would be considerably faster in the site location and therefore would be unsuitable. They were also surprised at the rattling of the materiality due to the weather and the lack of fixtures securing the cladding to the structure. It was decided that the polycarbonate material would not be appropriate for the project.

4.00.00 4.00.01

VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY WORKSHOP The group also visited the university workshop to understand the space and tools that are available for the construction of the shelter. In particular it was of use to DS, who could understand where the LLTNP transit van can pull in and the sizes that will fit through the doors provided onto the vehicle. It also gave the team the chance to speak to Derek from the workshop, who showed them previous work that has been done.

4.00.02

DS was happy at the location and facilities of the workshop as means of constructing the shelter. He also offered the Strathclyde students some advice in terms of working alongside Derek in the workshop in terms of avoiding the design being changed for unnecessary reasons and gaining too many sources of information and guidance.

5.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 12.02.16

5.01.00

PB stated that she is very excited and looking forward to seeing the design proposal coming on and being refined for the next meeting. The site meeting in place for the 09.03.16 was also altered to the 24.02.16 to fit in with university deadlines. In between this meeting, the pre-application meeting will take place on 03.02.16 with the planner, LLTNP and Strathclyde to resolve any issues and submit the pre-application document.

MEETING 3

3.1

The advice on the materials was thoroughly appreciated. Paulaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s advice to avoid B&Q as they are expensive suppliers was also valuable for

29/01/2016 UNIVERSITY

The Strathclyde Students presented their initial 4 concept ideas to the clients at University of Strathclyde, providing a range of options including future expansion.

future reference. I was also relieved that Dermot has a main contact for Russwood for Scottish Larch Cladding as it could help to stretch the budget.

Modules

Representatives from both parties (RSPB and LLTNP) were present at the meeting which was a good

Dermot defined the two key concepts of the shelter

sign for the students as more direct feedback was

as framing the main view of Ben Lomond and the wildlife interaction. He also advised on the construction process that the main foundation should be composed of paving slabs, and the shelter should be fire treated within the workshop phase to avoid harming any wildlife on the site. Becky pitched the use of polycarbonate for roofing to create transparent elements within the roof, but Dermot suggested that it was unsuitable as it weathers quickly.

given with less misunderstandings. The feedback

Directed Views

provided me with a good direction for future design considerations. I was however slightly annoying as the clients could not decide on one design, leaving us with a lot of refinement of the design.

The Honeycomb

During feedback, Dermot emphasised the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role as a resting point as part of the journey around the path. Paula placed an emphasis on the insect hotel being ideal to incorporate a wildlife feature as part of the structural wall. This was further supported by Becky Austin, project manager for the RSPB, in the insect hotel creating an interactive element for the children.

Manipulating the Rectangle Viewing Shelter | Page 29

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

that the students should confer with the RSPB into finding out how geese react to different things on the site

Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park

1.00.00 1.00.01

2.00.00 2.01.00

2.01.01

2.02.00

GENERAL OVERVIEW – PRE-APPLICATION MEETING Thomas Ledingham (TL) attended the meeting set up by Dermot Smyth (DS) to cover the information that is required for the planning application. This took into account all of the previous documents that the Strathclyde students have put together alongside advice from TL on the next steps to take. The meeting introduced the requirement for a planning application for the structure as opposed to the 4 previous Scottish Scenic Routes (SSR) projects which did not require planning. The overview from the meeting was that the Viewing Shelter would require a planning application to be carried out by the Strathclyde Students.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – PLANNING APPLICATION DETAILS TL stated that the reasons for the planning application being necessary is because the regulations have changed with regards to protected sites requiring planning. He also stated that the final design concept and the access to the structure are inherent to the planning application. TL also emphasised that access via foot and the path should be available within the application. Victoria Scott (VS) replied by explain how the current concept is proposed using standard sheet sizes to reduce waste. VS also explained that the structure will be accessible via a ramp indicated on the plan, with entrance of the proposed route that the RSPB are putting in. It was also indicated that a turning circle was to be incorporated in some aspect of the plan to allow disabled users access. TL went on to discuss the main consideration being the geese in siting the shelter. Geese are restricted by EU law and therefore a strategic environmental assessment is required to make sure that geese will not be disturbed within their breeding season from October to March. He also added

Meeting 4 Minutes

2.09.02

TL furthered this comment by mentioning that the environmental policies and physical policies will need to be looked into, however there is more of a focus on the environmental side. The park is an environmental site for the birds, as it is a legally protected species and therefore any structure on the site should meet these considerations. In this sense, TL mentions that there must be justification within the planning application as to why the structure is located on that site.

2.04.00

TL then went on to explain the Planning Advice Note in detail, recommending the Strathclyde students to visit www.eplanning.scot to assist in pulling together the information for the planning application. DS furthered this by explaining that it takes 8 weeks for a planning application therefore it would have to be complete by mid-March in order to start on site in time.

2.04.01

DS furthered this by explaining that it takes 8 weeks for a planning application therefore it would have to be complete by 9th March in order to start on site in time.

2.10.00

DS stated that LLTNP and the RSPB are joint landowners of the site, however for reference to the planning application the RSPB should be used for simplicity.

2.04.02

TL furthered this by commenting on the heavy workload of the planning office currently, insinuating that it would take the full 8 weeks for a planning application to be approved.

2.11.00

DS went on to explain that if certain materials or details have not been finalised by the time the planning application is submitted, Thom can condition them within reason.

2.05.00

TL also said that the materiality of the trail that is going to be placed on the site will need to be included within the planning application. He furthered this comment by asking how the path would then be affected if the structure was removed/ does it make up a crucial element of the pathway.

2.12.00

LS raised the issue of the structure being moved from a temporary to a permanent location after the path has been installed, and how this would affect the planning application in terms of the site drawings.

2.05.01

LS replied to this comment by explaining that the shelter will be located in a temporary location before being placed in the final resting point off to the side of the path, and the RSPB are in talks with the Strathclyde students to extend the pathway to incorporate the structure where required.

2.12.01

TL responded by saying that this is not a normal instance because the planning application is normally for permanent structures such as houses. However, TL did mention that after a year the RSPB can apply for a non-material variation with justification for the change in location.

2.06.00

TL explained that it is important for the structure to merge into the surroundings with limited change to the existing landscape. He also added that a final site is required drawn onto a site plan, with scale drawings required.

3.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 12.02.16 (Design Meeting)

2.06.01

Karolina Brozynska (KB) furthered this by informing TL of the research into Russwood products, notifying how the timber will weather over time and outlining the possible coatings and paints that can be used to protect the structure as well as allowing it to blend into the landscape.

3.01.00

DS mentioned that for the next design meeting a more defined design proposal should be completed for comments by himself and the RSPB. A start to the planning application should also be done within this time frame to get ahead of the process.

2.07.00

TL also said that information on how long the live build process will take on site is required for the planning application. This arose issues on whether the design will require a building warrant or not.

2.07.01

DS replied that a Building Warrant should not be required but the Strathclyde Students will have to go through the motions of researching whether or not one is needed.

2.07.02

VS furthered this topic by asking if a Health & Safety risk assessment is required for the site.

2.07.03

TL answered this question by saying the RSPB would be responsible for advising on this topic as the structure is to be located on their land.

2.08.00

KB then asked about the design statement section within the planning application notes, and what information is required to be within the design statement.

2.08.01

TL added that it is not always a requirement for structures of this size, and that most of the information is already in the Strathclyde student’s presentations that he has accessed.

2.08.02

DS furthered this by telling the Strathclyde students to summarise all of the information from previous presentations into an executive summary at the front of the planning application, and this should suffice.

Chong Kar Mun (CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting

DS added that the Strathclyde students should create an account and log into the e-planning and get familiar with procedures. DS also added that the students should speak to him or Derek Hill in regards to assisting with the policy points.

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) went on to explain that the structure is expected to be constructed in May, therefore should impact on geese within the site. TL went on to exaggerate the importance of a planning application for the structure as the park has no permitted development rights. He went on to explain that the delegated authority (local council) will deal with the planning applications for small scale structures.

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

2.09.01

2.02.01

Thomas Ledingham (TL) – Planner Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

TL went on to speak about the fee for the planning application being £202 via the online website that has been previously noted. TL also noted that there is now a formal pre-application file for the Viewing Shelter in which he will put the considerations into writing. The new document will link with the proposed local development plan document.

2.03.00

03.02.16 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Attendees:

2.09.00

PREAPP

3.2 L

Following this meeting, I was overwhelmed by how the addition of a planning application was going to effect the time line and our role within the project. I was worried that the planning application was taking the project down another route, and was exploiting the students as opposed to working in collaboration. We were also surprised that a planning application was necessary at all as the

MEETING 4

03/02/2016 UNIVERSITY

During the previous design meeting the necessity for a planning application arose, therefore a pre-application meeting was set up at the University of Strathclyde with Thom from LLTNP to cover what was required within a planning application. Thom reassured the students that a planning application is obligatory due to new environmental laws with regards to protected sites requiring planning.

previous 4 Scenic Routes projects were much smaller in scale and did not require any planning.

The timescale was an issue for the group due to our academic and personal calendars, as the project could be delayed by up to 8 weeks while waiting for planning approval. I was also frustrated at Dermot for not bringing up this issue earlier, and yet again leaving it up to the students to complete the task. The process seemed overwhelming to me as none of us had completed a planning application before and were only pointed in the direction of a

Thom also added that a planning application will take approximately 8 weeks to be approved, requiring the students to complete the application by the 9th March to stay on track for completion. The students explained that the Viewing Shelter is to be movable, which Thom explained would require an additional planning application to be submitted by the RSPB at further costs. Dermot attended the meeting alongside Thom as our collaborator, explaining that the fee for the planning application would also need to be funded from the student grant.

website for assistance.

Viewing Shelter | Page 31

Projects Through Collaboration

VS responded by suggesting that as the project had an architect currently involved that the simple solution was to ensure the planning application remained in control of LLTNP and the RSPB. 2.03.00

DH went on to point out that the project was funded by a student grant fund and the cost of statutory fees is not included in the terms of the grant. VS asked where the fee would come from. DH responded by stating that the fees is supplied by the party submitting the application, in this case LLTNP or RSPB.

2.04.00 PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

VS asked what the result of the need for a planning application and possibly a building warrant meant for the project. DH stated that if the project did need a planning application and building warrant that the date for a live build in May seemed optimistic. The student’s current time scale now had external factors affecting the process which could push the live build project to a later date. The project is a university class and relies on the architecture department’s workshop, meaning if the live build date ran out of term time it would become more difficult to meet.

03.02.16 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Attendees: Derek Hill (DH) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

KB also pointed out that herself, LS and CK do not live in Scotland out of term time so their involvement would become unlikely which would be unfortunate as the student would love to be part of the live build after the design process and involvement through the year.

Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Laura Satterthwaite (LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

DH summed up by stating that if planning pushed the live build to a date that out reached the student’s academic process, it was through external factors and unfortunately out of the student’s control. It does not mean that the shelter will not be built or that the university is no longer part of the process but that the project is picked up by other students at a later date or possibly the same students in their masters year.

Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun (CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.00.01

GENERAL OVERVIEW – UPDATE ON COLLABORATION The meeting started with a review of the meeting from earlier in the morning with LLTNP and the planning office to address the need for a planning application and building warrant and the fees for this.

2.00.00 2.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION KB asked if there was any support from the university for making planning applications. DH stated that the planning application was a step further in the collaboration process that is above the student’s academic requirements for a 20 credit class. He stated that it was not something that was originally anticipated for with a 5-10 square metre project. LS added that Dermot Smyth (DS) had previously mentioned that a planning application should not be needed but the Thom (T) from the planning office said that it was now required if the structure was to be on a protected site and regulations had changed since the previous Scenic Routes Initiative structures were designed and built.

2.02.00

DH also pointed out that the students would be unable to submit a planning application because the university only covers student designs up to a feasibility stage. The planning application would be a step above the feasibility stage and the university could not be liable for this. DH also pointed out that this issue had arisen previously within the university with the ‘Chalk Talk’ structure for The Merchant City Festival and to resolve this, an architects practice were involved to take liability for the project past feasibility stage.

Meeting 5 Minutes

3.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 12.02.16 with RSPB and LLTNP

3.01.00

DH recommended that today’s minutes be forwarded to LLTNP and the RSPB to ensure they are aware of the planning application issues ahead of the next design meeting.

P+

3.3

Derek Hill’s response to the pre-application meeting was a relief, and it was a weight off my shoulders that the project director was aware of the extreme workload that was being expected of them from the LLTNP.

I was concerned that the next meeting with the RSPB and LLTNP would be tense following an email to LLTNP stating that we would not be responsible for the planning application in response to the meeting with Derek. All of our initial concerns that LLTNP were taking advantage of their resources rather than creating a collaboration were confirmed with Derek’s input and were to be reassessed before the next meeting to state firmly what our roles are within the scheme.

MEETING 5

03/02/2016 UNIVERSITY

An internal meeting with the ‘Projects Through Collaboration’ director Derek Hill was arranged to voice a number of the students’ concerns following the pre-application meeting with Thom and Dermot. The primary concern was the work load attached with the responsibility of submitting the planning application. Derek Hill instantly noted that the students would not be responsible legally and academically for the planning application and focused the remainder of the meeting on finding a way to relieve their responsibility. There was also confusion about where the fee for the planning application would come from. Derek re-assured the students that the fee would not be taken from the student grant as it was a statutory fee which cannot be covered from a student grant and that Dermot should be aware of this already. The concern of the time scale was raised and Derek suggested that the students should add the latest date for the planning application submission to the timeline to make LLTNP aware of the deadline. On processing this change, the delivery date of the project seemed optimistic even when taking into account any setbacks with the planning application. Viewing Shelter | Page 33

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

2.07.05

PB emphasised that the new site location will not be underneath tree coverage, so it won’t have the issue of leaves falling onto the roof as opposed to the previous site choice. It will still have to find an approach to rainwater.

Karolina Brozynska (KB) replied by explaining that a series of shelves will be built into the structure with the intention of the RSPB adding the insect hotel boxes into these aspects.

2.07.06

2.04.02

Victoria Scott (VS) then added about the importance of community values in the construction of the shelter, with the potential for the local school to be involved in making the insect hotels to incorporate the children into the built aspect of the design.

DS added that water being trapped between the horizontal timber elements on the roof could be avoided by using slightly smaller horizontal beams so that water can run between a 10-15mm gap down the roof.

2.07.07

2.05.00

PB went on to say that she likes the idea of option 1, and the element of an enclosed roof over at least the seating area so that at least one part of the structure is enclosed.

PB furthered Dermot’s comment and concluded with the prospect of making the rain a feature of the structure, and could the roof eaves be extended to create a water feature and avoid rain running directly down the rear façade of the structure.

2.08.00 2.05.01

DS added that the current aesthetic of the option looks a little like a shed, and more thought must go into the spacing and design of the vertical timber cladding. He also liked the idea of the contrast between the dark external cladding and the light internal cladding to differentiate between the spaces. DS furthered this comment by asking the Strathclyde students to look into vertical timber cladding instead, and experiment with closer spacing’s of timber cladding.

PB then went on to talk about ballasts being required in within the seating element to act as a weight element securing the structure in place.

2.08.01

DS commented on this statement by saying a solid log seat would be great and would finish the structure off perfectly, acting as a ballast at the same time. He also said that there is currently a seat within the Falls of Falloch structure, and he would look into the possibility of moving it to the Viewing Shelter.

2.09.00

DS went on to ask the Strathclyde Students if they had thought about the decking within the structure.

2.09.01

KB went on to explain the information regarding Russwood timber decking that will be used within the structure.

2.09.02

LS concluded the statement with by pointing out the manufacturers decking option that includes resin on the decking to provide slip resistant surfaces, which will be particularly effective in the walkway area to reduce the risk of someone slipping.

2.10.00

DS went on to explain that the site will be slightly sloping, and a strategy must be in place to counteract any complications occurring on site with a completely perpendicular structure. He said that the easy way to compensate for this is to allow plenty of extra lengths underneath the decking. There should be at least 150mm for rain to fall underneath, however it may be safer to leave extra (between 200-500mm) to be calculate when visiting the site to allow for any slopes. DS also furthered this by saying if a ramp is necessary (which it won’t be if the structure is dug into the ground and stabilised) that the front/ low end of the ramp can ultimately cause a large trip hazard.

2.10.01

PB then asked DS how the site would be excavated, and if LLTNP have a digger as they do not own one currently on the site. She also explained that this will come with hire and operational charges depending on how much land is to be excavated.

2.10.02

DS replied by explaining that LLTNP are currently in talks with West Dumbartonshire Council about acquiring a digger for the National Park, however the Strathclyde Students should consider operational costs in case.

2.11.00

PB reiterated the prospect of paving slab foundations, sand bags to weigh the structure to the ground, and ballasts within the structure to assist the weight.

2.11.01

DS replied to this comment by explaining that the self-weight of the structure itself should be ok with it sitting on top if the base is correct. He also added that if footings were to be incorporated into the 4 corners of the structure it would require a lot more structural knowledge and complication than the project requires. He therefore preferred the option of a simple, self-weight structural with additional weight if required.

2.04.00

PB then asked if the Strathclyde Students were looking for any particular guidance on the insect hotels, and asked how the students were going about incorporating it into the structure.

2.04.01

12.02.16 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Attendees: Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB Fiona Weir (FW) – Landscape Architect RSPB

2.05.02

Fiona Weir (FW) approved of DS’ comment, and added that she thought vertical cladding would sit better within the landscape of the site.

2.05.03

PB concluded this comment by stating that a solid roof on Option 1, with the partially open sides would allow volumes of wind to pass through the structure as opposed to shaking a solid block, which is a benefit for reducing noise and movement of the structure.

Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Laura Satterthwaite (LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun (CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

2.06.00

VS went on to ask the group if they prefer the idea of an open overhead space along the walkway as proposed in Option 1.

Minutes of the Meeting

2.06.01

PB though that this would all depend on how well weatherproofed the rest of the structure would be. If the walkway was to be open overhead, it would require the rest of the structure to be water tight and clad to prevent rain entering into the seating area. She also added that if it was to be overhead, it would be nice to look up and see the sky however it would depend on how this effected the slipperiness of the deck material.

1.00.00 1.00.01

GENERAL OVERVIEW – DESIGN PRESENTATION The Strathclyde Students presented the up to date design proposal with façade and cladding options to the RSPB and LLTNP for discussion. The general outcomes were that the structure is on track for development and finalisation, with further detail required into the costing and technical details. LLTNP were identified as responsible for submitting and paying the fee for the planning application. The change in location with the initially thought to be temporary location now being the permanent site now informs the design options with the view facing out over Ben Lomond.

2.00.00 2.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – PLANNING APPLICATION DETAILS Dermot Smyth (DS) stated that LLTNP will be submitting the planning application next week so that it is complete with plenty of time before the live build.

2.02.00

Paula Baker (PB) emphasised that as opposed to buying sandbags we should look into making then ourselves.

2.03.00

PB stated that she preferred the flexibility for disabled users of the Option 2 plan, however the seating along the full back of the shelter would leave no space for a wheelchair bound user to sit.

2.03.01

DS furthered this by stating that he prefers the seating style closer towards the view in Option 1, which allows a gap between the seating and the wall for a wheelchair user to sit between. This would also allow the option for people to stand behind the bench while two people can be seated within the structure, furthering the capacity within the structure. If a deck aspect was incorporated onto the front of the shelter it would allow people to step out to experience the view further.

2.12.00

Following on from this discussion, DS noted that he will speak to some engineers to see if they are able to look over the scheme for free and assist with any cross-bracing requirements. He also added that he is able to send the Strathclyde Students standard timber details to help figure out how to protect the ends of cladding systems from exposure which will speed up the deterioration. He also added that the Strathclyde Students should undergo research into where and how the two perpendicular cladding boards meet and the insertion of battens to assist this.

2.13.00

PB then asked about the timber manufacturer Russwood, and if they were a timber yard.

2.13.01

DS replied by explaining the use of the company in the £250,000 Inveruglas structure and that he will contact the supplier to see if a deal can be made in association with the previous use of them on the other SSR projects. He explained to the RSPB that Russwood are a high quality and very helpful company, although they may come with a premium so the students should potential research alternative timber yard options when costing the structure. He also added that there is the possibility available of visiting Russwood to assess the different types of timber and how they would affect the aesthetics of the final structure. DS also added that the fixings should be thought about as part of the design, and coach bolts are the cheapest and most effective way of putting the structure together and can look nice recessed into the structure.

2.14.00

PB highlighted her concerns regarding the necessity of insect repellent detailing as a result of the insect hotel being located within the structure.

2.14.01

DS did not think that this would be an issue if the insect hotel is going to be in the form of a series of boxes that will be loose within the isolated wall of the structure. He did offer a solution if this was to be an issue in the form of insect mesh that can be inserted behind the timber if there is an issue.

2.14.02

VS furthered the comment by asking the RSPB how the insect hotel will actually work.

2.14.03

FW replied by offering to email precedent examples that the RSPB have installed within a shelter in London, explaining that the structure consisted of a wall with a series of holes of which insect hotel boxes could be inserted.

2.14.04

PB added that the insect hotel proposed in Option 1 is correct, although some form of Perspex or solid backing will be required internally to stabilise the insect hotel boxes.

2.14.05

DS went on to further the idea of the insect hotel by offering the idea of the Strathclyde Students creating a manual that can be passed on to the local schools to prepare and install them on the site.

2.15.00

KB then asked if it is possible to site and measure the location for the structure on the next meeting which is to be on site.

2.15.01

PB replied by saying if the students choose and mark the site, digging can begin during the week running up to the live build.

2.15.02

DS then raised the issue of livestock being in abundance on that site during the majority of the year.

2.15.03

FW offered the idea of creating a Ha-Ha by excavating the land to create a mound, blocking the view of the shelter from the livestock and acting as a barrier.

2.15.04

PB concluded this discussion by pointing out that if a Ha-Ha was to be excavated, it would add further to the operational costs of hiring a digger, and would also take longer to prepare.

Meeting 6 Minutes

2.06.02

DS also added that the two beams that are currently proposed attaching the walkway to the structure on either side would not suffice structurally, and that cross-bracing would be required. He stated that the structure should also read as one as opposed to two elements joined with a walkway.

2.07.00

VS went on to discuss the two façade options, asking the group which was the preferred option.

2.07.01

PB said that the shelving option (2) reminds her of a bamboo structure and would sit very well within the site. She thought that it looks interesting and is a bit different for people visiting the site.

2.07.02

DS liked that it looks like an exposed timber frame. He pushed the idea of if being slightly open so people can have an idea of what is inside on approach to the structure, although the current proposal is slightly too open, therefore a balance is required to be reached.

2.07.03

FW added that it looks like a basket in a nice woven aspect, and with a covered roof underneath the structure on the option it could work effectively within the proposed site.

2.07.04

VS voiced concerns about exposing the structure on the roof in terms of water and dirt getting trapped within the structure.

2.16.00

DS went on to mention that the Strathclyde Students should think about designing a type of plaque in collaborating with a company such as MakLab in order to etch names of the RSPB, LLTNP and the Strathclyde Students to be installed as accreditation within the structure.

2.16.01

PB also asked about the promotional aspects of the structure, and how LLTNP are getting involved.

2.16.02

DS said that there are a few options available for this to happen. LLTNP have an SSR link within their website, and are also advertising the new structure to be installed later this year. The Viewing Shelter will also be added to the SSR maps available as well as the pull out brochures, as the element that links the loop of all 5 structures when complete. He also added that The Lookout is going on tour to promote SSR which will be helpful in promoting the new shelter.

2.16.03

PB concluded the meeting by asking for a list of treatments required for the structure from the Strathclyde Students in association with treatment types and how often (years) it needs to be treated.

3.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 24.02.16 (Design Meeting on Site)

3.01.00

The next meeting is to be on site, therefore the Strathclyde students are to meet at the LLTNP headquarters at 9am in Balloch. This meeting will allow the team to get a visual of the structure on the site, and plan out the path around it. The final design with some technical aspects will also be delivered at this meeting.

MEETING 6

3.4

I was relieved that the planning application process and fee was being covered by LLTNP, but also anxious if the application would be processed on time for the live build to begin. We also felt comfortable with the change in responsibility of the planning application and all parties seemed to be happy with their position at this point.

I felt relieved to have finalised a design proposal but I was concerned that there were a number of technical questions that we had no resources to answer. I was also slightly annoyed at the miscommunication with the final site of the structure and felt that the structure was only being fixed to save the RSPB time and money with an additional application. This was also requiring alterations to be further made to the design to incorporate the new locationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view instead of moving forward with the technical requirements.

Design Development

12/02/2016 RSPB OFFICE

This meeting was scheduled as a final design meeting before beginning the technical segment of design, however it ended up acting as a summary covering the issues that had arose within the previous weeks. LLTNP had confirmed via email that they would be responsible for both the planning application and the fee, reducing the pressure on the students. The meeting began with LLTNP reiterating that they were on track to submit the application and it should not affect the time scale of the project if all goes well. The RSPB had also been in touch prior to the meeting to state that the location of the viewing shelter would now be fixed to one location. It was of the students understanding that the fixed location would be the final location within the bluebell forest on site, however following the meeting it was recognised that the RSPB were using the initial location as the new, fixed location. The student presented a finalised design with alternating cladding and plan options. The RSPB and LLTNP agreed on the design but raised a few queries about the structural qualities that the students would have to address. Viewing Shelter | Page 35

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

2.02.01

DS confirmed that a special attention should be paid to the issue as the floor cannot be slippery. He suggested it is better to avoid making any perforations in the roof from the structural and aesthetic point of view.

3.00.00

VISIT TO THE GARTOCHARN STE

3.00.01

On the site, KB together with PB, BA and DS decided to mark the area of 10 sq/m (300 cm x 300 cm) to meet the requirements of planning application. The marking sticks were set out on a small knoll directly facing the view of Ben Lomond.

4.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 23.03.16

5.01.00

BA stated that she is very happy with the scheme and the destination chosen. PB and DS were looking forward to seeing the final design proposal during presentation in Lighthouse. DS suggested to organize the meeting with an engineer who could help to sort out the structural issues and detailing as well as check the stability of the scheme.

24.02.16 Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Headquarters Carrochan Road , Balloch

Attendees: Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB Becky Austin (BA) – Project Supervisor RSPB Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.00.01

GENERAL OVERVIEW – SITE VISIT AND MARKING OUT THE PLOT One member of the student team (Karolina Brozynska) went to Balloch to meet Dermot Smyth (DS) and Paula Baker (PB) in order to choose and mark the area for the construction of the viewing shelter whilst the remainder of the team concentrated on producing structural information for an upcoming meeting. Prior to the meeting with PB on site in Gartocharn, a discussion concerning the size and form of updated design proposal was held with Dermot Smyth in his office in Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park residence.

2.00.00 2.01.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION –THE DISCUSSING OF DESIGN PROPOSAL Karolina Brozynska (KB) stated the final scheme with the deck added to the front of the shelter is currently 11.5 sq/m.

2.01.01

Dermot Smyth (DS) responded the shelter seems to be too big as the scheme should not be more than 10 sq/m as this dimension was pre-arranged by the planning application authorities. The issue would have to be addressed as the additional deck will be included within the building area.

2.01.02

Karolina Brozynska (KB) then went on to explain it is impossible to meet all demands within such a small scheme as the turning circle for wheelchair users has always a priority therefore the bench will have to be reduced in size.

2.01.03

DS explained he does not see it as a problem as there is an additional exterior bench added to the rear of the shelter. DS also added that there is an existing 6 m long bench that could be cut in pieces and used for the project.

2.02.00

KB asked about the perforation in the roof and if there are any safety restrictions according to deck materiality in terms of main passage in the shelter being constantly exposed to the rain.

Meeting 7 Minutes

FINAL SITE V I S I T

3.5

Every time a new request is introduced by the clients the more concerns start to grow. In my opinion a concept for such a small scheme should be simple, compact and easy to provide whereas at this late stage the design is still changing and it sadly begins to lose its origin design assumptions. It is a pity instead of focusing on details we have to deal with the lack of professionalism from Dermotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s side.

24/02/2016 GARTOCHARN

This meeting was arranged on site in close time proximity to the structural meeting the following week, therefore only one member of the team attended Balloch. Karolina met Dermot and Paula on site in order to mark out the construction area for the Viewing Shelter. On the site, the team marked out the 10 m2 area with the sticks. The final chosen site was set out on a small knoll directly facing the view of Ben Lomond. Simultaneously, the remainder of the group was working on the structural drawings and models for the upcoming meeting with the engineer.

At the same time when Karolina was on site we

Prior to the meeting, a discussion concerning the size

were laser cutting the final models for exhibition. I

and form of the updated design proposal was held with Dermot in his office. Unfortunately, the shelter with the deck requested by the clients had turned out too large, and Dermot had aspirations for the scheme to be no more than 10 m2 to suit planning regulations.

was really frustrated when we got to know that our efforts from the morning were a waste of time as the design had changed hugely once again.

Viewing Shelter | Page 37

T E CHNICAL STRATEGY Ma rc h- Ap ril 2 0 1 6

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

02.03.16 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Attendees:

2.02.02

Dermot Smyth (DS) asked if ballasts would help to weight down the structure, explaining to SR the solid timber bench that is available to be situated within the structure.

2.03.00

SR voiced his concerns over the large opening at the front as a dominant opening which could cause structural instability.

2.03.01

DS asked if OSB sheets could be added internally for racking, which could then have battens and cladding on top.

2.03.02

Chong Kar Mun (CK) asked if it is possible to have so many layers due to the budget constraints.

2.04.00

SR asked which external materials are being used within the structure, as these could assist the structural stability of the shelter.

2.04.01

KB explained that it is 22mm Scottlish larch treated cladding.

2.04.02

DS stated that if cross-bracing was used between the structure and the cladding it would reduce the requirement for extra materials.

2.05.00

CK queried how the insect hotel will affect the structure.

Dermot Smyth (DS) – Architect Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Steve Rudd (SR) – Structural Engineer Victoria Scott (VS) – University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Laura Satterthwaite (LS) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Karolina Brozynska (KB) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department Chong Kar Mun (CK) - University of Strathclyde Architecture Department

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.00.01

2.00.00 2.01.00

GENERAL OVERVIEW – DESIGN AND STRUCTURE PRESENTATION The Strathclyde Students presented the up to date design drawings and structural model to the structural engineer. The general outcome was that a computer model would be generated to test the stability of the structure in relation to wind loads. The general outcomes were that footings would be required to hold the columns in place alongside the structure, and cross bracing would be required to stop lateral movement due to the one open façade. The structural engineer informed the students he would get in touch during April with the proposed changes to the design pro bono. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION – STRUCUTRAL QUERIES Steve Rudd (SR) asked the students if the structure would be quite open as it could result in a racking effect if the wind blows the structure. SR stated that a portal frame structure should be used to avoid this, however it would result in a chunky structure. The structural engineer offered the option of using hangman’s brackets between the columns and the roof structure to add further stability, alongside shoe brackets holding the columns in place.

2.01.01

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) responded by explaining the requirement for an exposed internal structure, therefore chunky fixtures like hangman’s brackets should be avoided if possible.

2.02.00

Karolina Brozynska (KB) then went on to explain the progress of understanding the footings requirement underneath the deck and the issues with circulation underneath the structure.

2.02.01

SR answered by explaining that if the structure was not anchored down in some way, the use of footings beneath the deck could lead to uplift as a result of wind. SR offered the option of securing the base down to the columns to assist the weight.

Meeting 8 Minutes

2.05.01

SR said that although it will slightly effect the stability it should not be an issue. SR continued to say that he would look into it for the students.

2.05.02

DS replied by stating SR can look into the RSPB for examples of what an insect hotel is.

2.06.00

VS then asked SR if the column sizes were large enough.

2.06.01

SR told the students that he can run the structural model through a computer programme to test the stability.

2.06.02

DS also mentioned his thoughts that the columns may need to be around 145mm for the structure.

2.06.03

SR replied by saying that if the columns sit into a shoe then it will provide further stability.

2.07.00

SR summarised by explaining that he will run the design through a 2D computer model for analysis, looking at the required column to joist connections.

2.08.00

DS summarised by suggesting the students look at local timber merchants when costing to save money, such as MGM Timber.

3.00.00

NEXT MEETING: 23.03.16

3.01.00

LS stated that the next and final meeting is arranged for the 23.03.16, and will take place alongside the exhibition at the Lighthouse.

MEETING 8

4.1 L

Following the meeting, I was concerned over the quantity of changes the structural engineer suggested due to the lack of knowledge that we have. Following the meeting, Dermot sent an email with major changes to the design, therefore I felt the meeting was a waste of valuable time in

02/03/2016

CONSULTATION WITH ENGINEER

Upon solidifying a design proposal, a meeting with a structural engineer was arranged to advise on the proposed structure due to the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lack of previous live build experience. Dermot arranged for Steve Rudd to offer his services for free to discuss the appropriate measures that will need to be further considered.

developing the scheme as the engineer would now be unfamiliar with the design. The prospect of beginning the live build with less than 100% confidence in the design was unsettling and daunting to think about.

On time of commentary, Steve was yet to respond to the students with feedback on the design which is set to be built within a few weeks. I was annoyed at being let down again by members of the design team during this process, however it highlighted the key characteristics of the reliability of timescale when receiving pro bono work.

Structural Model

The students prepared technical drawings and a structural model to be discussed. Through this conversation, Steve had concerns about the wind loads causing lateral movement due to the open front faĂ§ade of the building, requiring cross bracing to counteract the effects. Steve also highlighted the requirement for footings holding the columns in place, and the use of ballasts to weight down and anchor the structure to the ground. The outcome of this meeting was that Steve would make a computer model to test the structural integrity of the shelter. Dermot also suggested that a solid timber seat within the structure could solve the requirement for ballasts. Viewing Shelter | Page 41

L IGHTHOU S E EXHIB ITIO N 4.2 L

The Lighthouse exhibition was extremely successful in creating goals to work back from, providing a consistent time line with achievable points of progress. The exhibition allowed everyone within

21/03- 15/04/2016 THE LIGHTHOUSE

The exhibition at the Lighthouse ran from Monday 21st March – Friday 15th April, and consisted of a public exhibition of the ‘Projects Through Collaboration’ work within Glasgow city centre.

the group to cater to their strengths, with Karolina producing strong visual images to convey the scheme to compliment design models. It was also successful in highlighting areas of the design that were under thought, such as the insect hotel, providing further focus for the upcoming final design meeting.

The exhibition was utilised as a milestone to work towards as part of the design process, with the aspiration of delivering a complete design scheme to be used as a platform for discussion. It was also a brilliant opportunity to advertise the scheme and the RSPB’s development of the Loch Lomond site to the public and engage with the local community. The students worked to provide an exhibition consisting of development and final drawings as well as a structural and design model to cover all aspects of the design. It was also the ideal location to house the final design meeting where the team could all gather and revel in the quantity of progress that the design had undertaken over the short period of time to achieve the final design status.

Viewing Shelter | Page 43

Projects Through Collaboration

PROGRESS MEETING No: Date: Location:

3.01.02

PB also stated that they were hoping to use a local source of larch for at least some of the cladding but it would not have the same locking system that the Russwood timber has. The timber would be cut from RSPB larch and cut to strips of whatever dimensions were required.

3.01.03

KJ enquired about the roof cladding and what kind of waterproofing would be used.

3.01.04

Laura Satterthwaite (LS) responded by saying that the timber would be treated with weather proofing but no damp proof membrane would be used. The locking system of the Russwood cladding would make the roof more waterproof that a standard screw connection used with the locally sourced timber. It was agreed that Russwood timber would be used for the roof.

3.01.05

VS pointed out that the Russwood decking comes with a slip proof resin already applied and it may be beneficial to use this timber as decking rather than the locally resourced.

23.03.16 The Lighthouse, Glasgow

Attendees:

3.01.06

PB concluded by agreeing that the RSPB would provide cladding for the walls only and she would forward her contacts details onto VS for further enquiry.

4.00.00

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

Paula Baker (PB) – Site manager RSPB Kat Jones (KJ) RSPB Becky Austin (BA) RSPB Anna Pew (AP) RSPB

4.01.00

KJ asked what kind of foundations would be used for the structure.

4.01.01

Karolina Brozynska (KB) responded by stating that there would be no technical foundations, just digging into the site to level out the ground and laying paving slabs. There would be additional paving slabs on the pressure points and sand bags could be used within the ground frame as additional weight. The bench is also extremely heavy and would help fix the structure to the ground.

4.01.02

PB asked if there had been any correspondence with the structural engineer who had met with the students previously and offered to analyse the environmental state on the site and its effect on the structure.

4.01.03

VS responded by stating that they had met but had not had any response. (The drawings that the engineer has are also out of date as the structure had to be reduced in size following the engineering meeting)

4.02.00

LS arose the question of who would provide the digger to site.

4.02.01

PB stated that one would most likely need to be rented.

4.02.02

Anna Pew (AP) added that she had rented one before for the site and a driver is usually supplied to do the digging too.

4.03.00

KJ raised concerns with the dimensions and the structure of the shelter, asking what dimensions the engineering timber were.

4.03.01

KB responded by stating the dimensions of the engineering timber and that they would be doubled up for extra support. The timber dimensions were from looking at a timber source.

4.03.02

KJ responded by asking why the engineering timber had not been specified to standard dimensions.

4.03.02

KB stated that she had looked at sourcing the timber from a manufacturer that another student project had used and these were the dimensions.

Minutes of the Meeting 1.00.00 1.00.01

GENERAL OVERVIEW – DESIGN SUMMARY The Strathclyde students gave a quick summary of the design and the process for the benefit of Anna Pew (AP) who had not previously attended a meeting. The Lighthouse exhibition table worked as a visualisation of the students work so far.

2.00.00

DISCUSSION OF THE BENCH

2.01.00

The bench to be used in the shelter is currently in one 4 metre block of timber and will have to be cut to be used for the structure. AP was wondering how the timber would be cut as it currently has part of a poem etched on the front. Paula Baker (PB) stated that the idea was to have separate sections of the bench and the poem distributed along the path with the end of the poem being in the shelter. PB continued by saying that the RSPB would have to look into how the bench will be moved onto site.

3.00.00

DISCUSSION OF CLADDING

3.01.00

Kat Jones (KJ) asked how the timber cladding would be connected and where it was being sourced. Victoria Scott (VS) responded by showing KJ the timber cladding samples from Russwood and explaining the cladding system that works with it.

3.01.01

Meeting 9 Minutes

4.04.00

VS asked if the RSPB were happy with the overall aesthetic of the shelter and the differing treatments of the timber.

4.04.01

AP said she was extremely pleased with the outcome of the shelter and was looking forward to the next stage of it.

5.00.00

CONCLUSION

5.01.00

PB stated that she was concerned that this was the final design meeting and Dermot had not been present. She also stated that the RSPB would need to have an additional meeting with LLTNP to discuss press events. VS stated that the Strathclyde students would not be available for any further meetings until after their final studio exam on the 21st of April. After then it would be late for a design meeting if the shelter was to begin the building process the week beginning 9th May.

FINAL MEETI N G 9

4.3

The students were extremely disappointed that Dermot had not turned up to the final meeting after making so many design changes, especially since so many structural question were raised and the students struggling with this knowledge. I was fuming with the number of design decisions that Kat had questioned, especially since she had only attended the first design meeting.

I felt extremely concerned that another meeting would need to be arranged which would conflict with our upcoming design studies exam. We were all left feeling deflated from what should have been a positive milestone in the design process. I was becoming concerned with whether or not the viewing shelter could realistically be built within the time frame remaining due to Dermotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s absence and the number of details that had not been

23/03/2016 THE LIGHTHOUSE

Prior to the final meeting, an email from Dermot led to major design changes to fit the shelter within an 8 m2 footprint to avoid the requirement for a building warrant. The final meeting was located at The Lighthouse, and was scheduled to involve all areas of the design team. This was tainted when Dermot did not show up for the meeting, leaving the RSPB with several contractual questions unanswered and the Strathclyde students not knowing if they were producing a successful scheme. Whilst Paula was happy with presentation at the Lighthouse and how it portrayed the schemes development, Kat challenged most of the design decisions, the structural capability of the shelter, the construction timber dimensions, the cladding types and the weatherproofing. The only question that the students could not answer was concerned with the structural capability as they had not heard back from the structural engineer and Dermot was not present.

confirmed.

Viewing Shelter | Page 45

I N T E RNAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONCL USIONS

IN TERN A L DISC U S S IO N

5.1 L

The students were extremely disheartened by the realisation that the live build would not go ahead.

I was slightly relived that the stress from the live build had been lifted as there was a pressure of

Myself and Victoria were particularly upset as we

the group’s availabilities, but felt sympathetic for

had spoken to Derek Gillan on more than one

Paula who had been an invaluable resource and

occasion and the workshop availability was never

enthusiastic throughout the design process.

seen as a concern. I also felt that we were put to blame by Derek for this detrimental fault.

We considered an external workshop being used but without the advice from Derek, the students

I regularly questioned the ‘collaboration’ and felt it was not about contributing their academic

had very little structural knowledge to complete

knowledge to LLTNP, but instead producing the

the build to a great standard and were unaware

bulk of the ‘work’ for LLTNP. To conclude, the

of what tools would be available. There was once

students felt that the energy and work load they

again a mutual feeling that the students were

put in to the project was left unrewarded because

without the appropriate resources to provide the

the shelter would not be built, but they are very

viewing shelter.

eager to further their project involvement into next year if the prospects arise.

25/04/16 UNIVERSITY

The students met internally whilst compiling the case study to discuss the final outcome of the project and their next steps. Derek Hill advised that the ‘Projects Through Collaboration’ submission was not dependent on the structure being built but the case study submission, and the students should not feel reliable for any circumstances preventing the live build. The students agreed that the week would be spent concentrating on the case study and the materials and final design details could be organised later. Unfortunately, following the final internal meeting further circumstances have prevented the feasibility of the live build. The student grant funds from the Scottish Government could not be released until a later date due to the member of staff being on annual leave, leaving the students with no other option to purchasing the materials. In addition to this Derek Gillan, the workshop director, was unexpectedly unavailable during the scheduled week in the workshop despite the students provisionally booking it months in advance.

Viewing Shelter | Page 49

SKETCH APPENDIX

MEETING 3 29/01/2016

Â£

Final Site

Initial Site

sta r

01 Manipulating The Rectangle

02 Two Modules

03 Shelter

04 Honeycomb

1700

Section A:A

1500

Floor Plan

Section B:B

2400

2000

3000

Rear Elevation

Elevation 1

1500

2400

Floor Plan

Elevation 2

Section

Roof Plan

Viewing Shelter | Page 53

MEETING 6 12/02/2016

Viewing Shelter | Page 55

MEETING 7 24/02/2016

3 6 0 c m x 3 00 c m (1 1 sq/ m)

MEETING 8 2/03/2016

300 cm x 300 cm (9 sq/m )

MEETING 9 23/03/2016

300 cm x 240 cm (8 sq/m )

Viewing Shelter | Page 57