- Welcome to Halcrow Pensioners Forum.
Recent posts
#1
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by John Ratsey - Today at 05:15:55 PMGraham Cook has provided some useful information about the Burderop Park model which was mentioned in HPA Newsletter No. 59.
"I have always understood that Halcrow's original proposal for BP was for 5 small pavilions as is shown on that model. I also understood that the change was nothing to do with the planners objections but rather to do with Halcrow's available finances. I believe that the layout in the model was produced by Halcrow's own architectural practice.
A key thing about a business pavilion is getting natural light into the middle. If you have a small pavilion, the lighting throughout is much better. As the size of the pavilion increases, then you either need to be big enough to have a central open courtyard or, slightly smaller, have a central cupola. I am sure many of us will remember the original layout of the first floor north and south pavilions with glass floored walkways around 4 large holes beneath a central cupola to let the light down to the ground floor (but sadly also lots of noise up from the ground floor!). I remember one or two colleagues whose penetrating voice could be heard all over the 1st floor - but they were on the ground floor! These holes and walkways were eventually covered over.
Back to the model. My understanding was that the 5 small pavilions were too expensive. I also understood that there was a falling out with the in-house practice and the design was taken away from them to an outside practice. There is an article in the Architects Journal somewhere (I used to have a copy) extolling the virtues of BP design. I cannot remember who the architect was. Personally, I think that the original 5 smaller pavilions design was much better!
I believe the second design was for 3 larger pavilions but, in the end, the partnership could only afford to build two. They were built of course between 1976 to 1979 when I think income for the partners was becoming tighter.
As I said, this was my understanding and it was from senior members of the management who should have known the truth. But it may all be my fabrication! See if anyone else has similar understanding.
I also think that the fact the we did not build the 3rd pavilion made it easy to get planning permission for the West Pavilion because we already had an approved unused planning permission. Once a planning permission is granted if you start building, it stays valid for ever not just 5 years (as it was then). I myself benefitted personally from this, not building part of my original personal planning permission but then changing the details of the unbuilt portion, just like BP.
Malcolm Fletcher was in charge of the west pavilion and you will remember it was a very different layout, MSF being alert to the need to have a narrow building that let the light in. MSF also tried first to get planning for a detached pavilion somewhere around the tennis courts. He saw that this could be rented out if times got hard, but the planners were having none of that. The original planning was for a 3rd pavilion attached to the north & south pavilions and that had to be used first before any other development.
I also understood from Chapman Warren (anyone remember them? Based in Wroughton near the traffic lights) that a quirk of planning was that it could not stop you expanding your corporate headquarters even if in an SSSI or AOB. Some company Southampton way got away with a massive extension because of that quirk. So another building could have been built at BP eventually.
I am sure this is all pretty much correct - at least correct to what I was told. Anyone else know if it is?"
Thank you Graham. I recall that one unwanted side effect of closing the light wells in the first two BP pavilions was that the heating circulation was messed up with the ground floor become a bit warm in winter and the first floor was chilly as no heat mighrated upwards through the hole.
"I have always understood that Halcrow's original proposal for BP was for 5 small pavilions as is shown on that model. I also understood that the change was nothing to do with the planners objections but rather to do with Halcrow's available finances. I believe that the layout in the model was produced by Halcrow's own architectural practice.
A key thing about a business pavilion is getting natural light into the middle. If you have a small pavilion, the lighting throughout is much better. As the size of the pavilion increases, then you either need to be big enough to have a central open courtyard or, slightly smaller, have a central cupola. I am sure many of us will remember the original layout of the first floor north and south pavilions with glass floored walkways around 4 large holes beneath a central cupola to let the light down to the ground floor (but sadly also lots of noise up from the ground floor!). I remember one or two colleagues whose penetrating voice could be heard all over the 1st floor - but they were on the ground floor! These holes and walkways were eventually covered over.
Back to the model. My understanding was that the 5 small pavilions were too expensive. I also understood that there was a falling out with the in-house practice and the design was taken away from them to an outside practice. There is an article in the Architects Journal somewhere (I used to have a copy) extolling the virtues of BP design. I cannot remember who the architect was. Personally, I think that the original 5 smaller pavilions design was much better!
I believe the second design was for 3 larger pavilions but, in the end, the partnership could only afford to build two. They were built of course between 1976 to 1979 when I think income for the partners was becoming tighter.
As I said, this was my understanding and it was from senior members of the management who should have known the truth. But it may all be my fabrication! See if anyone else has similar understanding.
I also think that the fact the we did not build the 3rd pavilion made it easy to get planning permission for the West Pavilion because we already had an approved unused planning permission. Once a planning permission is granted if you start building, it stays valid for ever not just 5 years (as it was then). I myself benefitted personally from this, not building part of my original personal planning permission but then changing the details of the unbuilt portion, just like BP.
Malcolm Fletcher was in charge of the west pavilion and you will remember it was a very different layout, MSF being alert to the need to have a narrow building that let the light in. MSF also tried first to get planning for a detached pavilion somewhere around the tennis courts. He saw that this could be rented out if times got hard, but the planners were having none of that. The original planning was for a 3rd pavilion attached to the north & south pavilions and that had to be used first before any other development.
I also understood from Chapman Warren (anyone remember them? Based in Wroughton near the traffic lights) that a quirk of planning was that it could not stop you expanding your corporate headquarters even if in an SSSI or AOB. Some company Southampton way got away with a massive extension because of that quirk. So another building could have been built at BP eventually.
I am sure this is all pretty much correct - at least correct to what I was told. Anyone else know if it is?"
Thank you Graham. I recall that one unwanted side effect of closing the light wells in the first two BP pavilions was that the heating circulation was messed up with the ground floor become a bit warm in winter and the first floor was chilly as no heat mighrated upwards through the hole.
#2
General Discussion / pre 1997 accruals
Last post by finneyb - December 24, 2025, 04:28:31 PMThanks for Newsletter 58 and news of the Pension Schemes Bill particularly the prospect of an upto 2.5% annual increase on pre 1997 pension.
I wonder how much the Hampshire/Bauer cases have influenced PPF who I understand are a supporter of the Bill - they were already on the hook for maintaining 50% of the original pre 1997 pension as a minimum under Hampshire/Bauer.
Calculations are going to get complicated.
All the best for the Festive Season.
I wonder how much the Hampshire/Bauer cases have influenced PPF who I understand are a supporter of the Bill - they were already on the hook for maintaining 50% of the original pre 1997 pension as a minimum under Hampshire/Bauer.
Calculations are going to get complicated.
All the best for the Festive Season.
#3
Miscellaneous / Mesothelioma arising from tunn...
Last post by John Ratsey - March 22, 2025, 04:04:39 PMAs mentioned in HPA Newsletter No. 58, Steve Tatman, the son of Ian Richard Tatman who died of mesothelioma in 2022, is keen to hear from others who may have had similar problems potentially arising from their work.
#4
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by rysiek - April 22, 2024, 11:18:59 AMThe Halcrow sign at the main entrance (see photo), which seems to have been retained throughout the redevelopment of Burderop Park, has recently been covered-up by works to the gate house cottage.
#5
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by David Rudland - January 07, 2024, 06:42:21 PMMeanwhile some views that you will definitely not see now. These date from c1993 - some of the pavilion buildings on the right would only have been around 3 years old at that time? 
#6
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by David Rudland - January 07, 2024, 06:39:30 PMThat's the view that £2.5M buys you.....
#7
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by David Rudland - January 07, 2024, 06:36:54 PMA couple of pictures from the 1990s to share.
A view looking east out of the Mansion second floor window. Another of the Mansion itself. Both from c1994.
A view looking east out of the Mansion second floor window. Another of the Mansion itself. Both from c1994.
#8
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by John Ratsey - January 02, 2024, 02:58:48 PMIt appears that the mansion has changed hands for £2.5M https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/24015319.swindon-property-developer-buys-burderop-house-2-5m/.
#9
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by John Ratsey - December 31, 2023, 08:49:43 PMOn a slightly different note, here's a 1968 photo of Princes Street in Swindon https://www.flickr.com/photos/swindonlocal/3904167378/in/photostream/. It appears that the ground is rising in the distance in which case Princes House (now mainly a Travelodge hotel but home to the Wiltshire branch of Halcrow prior to the completion of Burderop Park) is on the left side of the street.
#10
General Discussion / Re: Burderop Park Reminiscence...
Last post by John Ratsey - December 23, 2023, 03:28:59 PMQuote from: Jane Tordoff on December 22, 2023, 02:25:05 PMIt couldn't be '93 as I was in the Philippines. Perhaps '92 when I was intermittently in BP.
I think it may have been sometime in the summer of 1993. A someone said at least the system worked.