QUANTITY SURVEYOR (QS) COST ESTIMATES FOR POYNTON POOL SPILLWAY WORKS
Further to our exchange of emails last Thursday 16 October, please find attached a comprehensive technical review of the Issue 2 cost estimates produced by Currie and Brown as requested. Whilst the costings provided are very detailed we have identified significant omissions in the costings for the CEC Option 3C proposal and opportunities to substantially reduce the costs of Option 1D.
ou will see that CEC Option 3C has a revised client cost of £2.1m, which increases to £6.9m when all associated scheme costs are included. The £1.9m client cost of Friends of Poynton Pool Option 1D is consistent with the QS costs we presented at Strategic Planning Board in April 2024 due to the risk and inflation adjustments which have been applied.
Our review of the cost estimates for both options is detailed in the attached PDF document which has four sections:
| Pages | Worksheet | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Summary | Comparison of total cost for both options |
| 2 to 3 | 2. Works Compare | Comparison of building work costs for both options |
| 4 to 6 | 3. CEC_3C | Detailed breakdown for CEC_3C scheme with comments |
| 7 to 9 | 4. FoPP_1D | Detailed breakdown for FoPP_1D scheme with comments |
The suggested amendments to Option 1D primarily relate to the culvert costs. Having seen the cost estimates we consider a more cost effective solution would be to pipe jack under Friends of Poynton Pool Ltd. Company Number 16090322 Registered office: 82A James Carter Street, Mildenhall, IP28 7DE London Road. Furthermore, the landowner pipe costs should be classified as a construction risk as these could potentially be avoided if discussed with the landowner. This risk is also applicable to Option 3C which overflows via this route.
It would appear that the lack of detail in the planning drawings for Jacobs’ Option 1C has resulted in the omission of significant building work costs. We have also included other non-building works costs for Option 3C including the amenity value of trees which will be felled as they should be considered in the option appraisal.
We have identified further areas to reduce the cost of 1D which are not detailed in the attached, and would welcome the opportunity to work in a collaborative manner to discuss further.
In the interest of transparency and openness, we request that you make our review available to the Currie and Brown Quantity Surveyors to enable their more accurate representation of costs. If you choose to omit any of our information and hold it from the QS, we would ask that you provide a justification for doing so.
Yours sincerely,
Friends of Poynton Pool Ltd