Conclusion

After assembling this report, I believe that my design is feasible. The design directly responds to the sites needs and constraints is considerate of the surrounding area. As the site is a brown field site on a main road and the existing façade is to be retained, the chance of planning approval significantly increases. An issue which threatens the proposal is finance. Currently, funding is focused on the maintaining, operating and recovery of current leisure centres after the covid pandemic. The securing of funding for a new build leisure centre, especially one of this cost and complexity, would be difficult. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a private investor would invest as leisure centres do not generate sufficient profit and often break even. If funding was attained, via private investor, the cost of services may rise to increase profit. Subsequently, it may price out a portion of the intended users and somewhat defeat the aim of the project to provide sporting facilities for the local area. The design could be altered to be simpler in turn reducing construction costs, but this affects the buildings quality. When adapting my design to comply with part M of the buildings regulations I ignorantly perceived access as just providing widened corridors, ramps and lifts for the physically disabled; I did not factor in access for the cognitively impaired. However, to achieve a higher standard of accessibility, there is no need a major reworking of the design. Changes need to be made in the form of lighting and visual contrast. This could be done by distributing light evenly and keeping reflections, shadows and glare to a minimum. Furthermore, differences in colour and intensity can be used to create visual contrast. Although my design is compliant with part L of the building’s regulations, it is not enough to meet the target of being net-zero carbon by 2050. The building regulations do not cover embodied energy in buildings, the gains of operational energy reductions can be nullified by the embodied carbon in material choices. From this report I have learnt that although the buildings regulations serve their purpose in protecting people’s welfare and safety in and around buildings, they are guilty of requiring the bare minimum. Rigorous regulations are the only thing which can facilitate positive change in construction. The building regulations should be seen as the baseline, designers have a duty to improve upon them.