Request Expert

Expert is a chartered accountant in practice as a management consultant for over 30 years. He has specialised in the economics and financing of physical regeneration with particular reference to the development of property and the operation of businesses serving the tourism, leisure and cultural industrie and in this connection has undertaken market and financial feasibility studies, strategic development option studies, risk assessments, due diligence investigations, appraisals and project monitoring assignments on major projects in various international locations. In carrying out this work he generally forms part of leads interdisciplinary technical teams and takes responsibility for synthesising and reporting the teams' findings and conclusions.

Case 1: The Turner Contemporary, Margate (“the Project”)
Clients: Arts Council England and South East of England Development Agency
Nature of Consultancy Work: Due Diligence Assessment of Stages C, D and E Studies
Period of Assignment: June 2004 to April 2006
His Role: Director of Technical Assessment Team and Appraiser of Business Case.

Project Description: The Project was the development of an art gallery together with ancillary amenities providing a gross internal area of 3,200 square metres to be located alongside the Grade 2 listed pier in Margate. The key feature of the Project was that the main building was to be erected in the inter tidal zone on the exposed side of the pier and was to take the form of a steel clad “fin” standing three storeys above the height of the pier offering the gallery space, an auditorium and rooms designated for arts education. This structure was to be connected to the pier by an enclosed two level bridge, itself leading from a new building housing a reception area, offices, gallery shop and restaurant. The Project was being promoted and managed by Kent County Council (“KCC”), which regarded it as the central pillar of its plans to regenerate Margate, and had been progressed following an international design competition. The total costs of the Project at Stage C were estimated at £25 million and ACE and SEEDA had each received applications for funding of £4 million.

Work Undertaken: He was instructed to review the Stage C and D studies for reasonableness of cost estimates, identification of risks and consistency of design with business plans. I and his team were not satisfied with the information provided (eg RIBA Stage D criteria had not been met) and they had serious concerns over, inter alia, structural stability, environmental control, thermal performance, acoustic performance and the constraints on the use of the building vis a vis fire hazards, access and egress and storage. All of these matters would have affected the ability to secure loans of works of art and would have had a consequential impact on visitor numbers and financial sustainability. They considered that construction costs were significantly underestimated, particularly in light of unresolved design issues and concomitant risks. They calculated that the additional costs of siting the Project in the tidal zone were substantial and queried why other development options had not been examined. His report was made available to and discussed extensively with KCC and its advisers. However, none of the above issues were adequately addressed by the Stage E studies. Further, KCC had by then decided to procure the Project via a two stage Design and Build contract. In the circumstances he believed that this strategy would be inappropriate and was unlikely to guarantee either the integrity of specifications or cost certainty.

Following this review he undertook an appraisal of the business case and regeneration impact. An argument had been advanced by KCC that the proposed building would be unique and so attract visitors in its own right. He could find no evidence for this from the studies presented and the comparisons he made with the performance of other landmark arts venues. His calculations indicated that, assuming its successful development, the Project represented low VFM and a marginally beneficial impact on visitor numbers and retained spending in Margate above a land based gallery with a similar arts offering. The appraisal also concluded with his view that there were at least three possible risk scenarios which could result in catastrophic outcomes.

Despite reservations, both ACE and SEEDA were under considerable political pressure to support the Project but, based on the advice given, were able to structure their funding offers in such a way as to ensure that funds would not be called upon until key design and procurement issues had been resolved and identified risks obviated or mitigated. Both reqCase 2: The Terminal Hotel, Athens International Airport (“the Project”)
Client: Athens International Airport SA
Nature of Consultancy Work: Feasibility Studies and Project Procurement
Period of Assignment: September 1998 to December 1999
His Role: Director of Technical Study Team and Commercial Adviser.

Project Description: The new Athens International Airport was being developed by the German contractors Hochtief in partnership with the Greek Government under a PPP Initiative whereby Hochtief was contracted to design, build, finance and operate the facility over a 30 year period. As an integral part of the scheme Hochtief had been required to procure the development of the Project, a 350 bedroom hotel connected to the main terminal building, but was initially unable to devise a financially feasible design solution.

Work Undertaken: He was instructed to review the various technical, market and financial studies that had been undertaken and, in the first instance, to advise on the design concept under consideration with a view to minimising risk exposure to both Hochtief as contractor and the SPV, Athens International Airport SA (“AIA”). The concept for the Project was predicated on the Greek Government’s stated requirement that, as it would be first building seen on arrival in Greece and the last to be seen on departure, the hotel had to be an architectural statement articulating the history and culture of Greece and the assumption that, as the new airport was to be promoted as a “hub” (and so, for example, should attract international conferences) average length of stay would be as for a down town property. This led Hochtief’s architects to the conclusion that the Project had to be of a five star standard expressing classical Greek features both externally and internally. As a result projected construction costs were very high whilst projected operating costs were disproportionate to projected revenues.

He checked key assumptions on projected and occupancies with market sources and his research indicated that there would be exceptional conditions prevailing in the lead up to the Olympic Games in 2004 as all major Athens hotels were or would be in the process of refurbishment. He was able to demonstrate that, even if in the short term assumptions on length of stay and room rates were correct, they would not remain so in the long term and that the average length of stay could be expected to fall to around half a day, as at most other airport hotels worldwide. This meant that whilst future guests would be concerned about standards of comfort and facilities, they would be much less interested in the building itself. He, together with his technical team, comprising an architect and a quantity surveyor, developed a design concept that provided for a four to five star standard interior housed in a basic building constructed in similar materials and style to the terminal. They compiled a cost plan for the hotel and prepared financial projections that indicated that the Project would be commercially viable providing the concession period for the hotel could be extended by a further 10 years.

He, together with the Chairman and other senior representatives of the SPV, presented the case for the extension of the concession period to the Minister of the relevant government department, demonstrating through options analysis that the State’s interests would not be prejudiced and this was accepted. He advised on the drafting of the concession agreement and was closely involved in the production of the Technical Output Specification and the Request for Proposals to prospective concessionaires. He and his team assisted with the evaluation of tenders and the selection of a preferred bidder and he participated in the negotiation of the agreement with that bidder.

In the process of drafting the concession agreement he had drawn to the attention of his client the potential problem of development work, or, indeed,Case 3: The City Of Manchester Stadium (“the Project”)
Client: Department of the Environment
Nature of Consultancy Work: Evaluation of Design and Commercial Proposals
Period of Assignment: March 1993 to July 1993
His Role: Member of Assessment Team/Commercial Adviser.

Project Description: The City of Manchester was submitting a bid to host the Olympic Games in 2000 and had invited design and commercial proposals from consortia for the main 80,000 seat capacity stadium. Four very detailed submissions had been received, all of which were substantially different in scope, scale and cost. The City of Manchester’s design advisory panel had selected the design submitted by the consortium led by developer/contractors Amec to incorporate in its bid to the IOC but since the cost of the Games would have been borne from national funds had Manchester won the nomination, the DOE needed to assess the Project to determine its VFM (vis a vis costs and benefits to public sector), environmental sustainability (vis a vis land reclamation and transport links) and economic sustainability (vis a vis regeneration impacts in legacy mode).

Work Undertaken: He was asked to join the DOE’s inner cities grants appraisal unit (comprising the same individuals that he had led during his secondment in 1987) to assess the commercial proposals put forward by each of the consortia and to coordinate his findings with those of team members reviewing construction costs and the immediate and longer term regeneration impacts. He analysed and compared each of the proposed designs as regards the amenities being offered by the Project both in Games and legacy mode, undertook desk research on the design and operations of comparable stadia in cities similar to Manchester, undertook some limited independent market research on the demand for the amenities identified and reviewed the accompanying financial projections for comprehensiveness, consistency with design and reasonableness vis a vis market information. Along with senior DOE officials and assessment team members he attended all meetings held with the four consortia and their professional advisers to discuss our questions and comments and he prepared a report detailing his recommendations on selection of a developer for the Project and conditions for funding that was incorporated in the final report submitted to the Cabinet.

Apart from being satisfied that the design proposals met the IOC specifications on sports and medical amenities, safety, and participant and spectator comfort, key issues then included the establishment of transport linkages, access and egress for spectators and vehicles, technicalities and costs of reducing the scale of the Project to legacy mode, problems of sight lines and viewing distances for entertainment events in legacy mode, adequacy of number and quality of catering outlets, leases of corporate boxes and the effect on future revenues, siting of permanent attractions/exhibitions in the Project or its curtilage, opportunities for complementary development around the Project, and, notwithstanding an arrangement (which was not endorsed by DOE) whereby Manchester City FC was committed to move its home ground to the Project irrespective of the design finally selected, post Games events programmes and their management.

Whilst one of the proposals was ruled out almost immediately on the grounds of gross costs alone, each of the others had their merits and demerits. For example the proposal with the second highest costs of construction offered a very imaginative utilisation of space within the building which generated the highest projected net commercial revenues. When capitalised this brought down the net cost much closer to the remaining two proposals. Of those two remaining, it was his view that the Amec consortium had taken a very pessimistic approach to legacy opportunities, reflected in both the design, which offered much less use of non sports related