CODE 18-77
Reference
1.8 He claimed that Swires were unhappy about the selection of Farrell. I refuted this saying that at my meeting yesterday with Swires they were clearly in favour of the selection of Farrell. He then suggested that although the technical side of Swirę Properties Ltd may be content there was concern at a higher level in the Swire organisation. I have been unable to confirm, or find the basis for this assumption.
2
CONCLUSIONS
Mr Day's concerns were related to wider issues than just the suitability of Farrell's scheme as a solution to the established brief. He was concerned, a) about the competence of OED to execute the project as a whole, quoting his experiences in Tunis, on the Riyadh Embassy project and with his apartment in the Albany. b) He challenged fundamental aspects of the brief, including the British Council's presence and especially their "theatre", and staffing levels throughout the building together with projected numbers of immigration and consular enquiries. c) He challenged the suitability of the Terry Farrell Company to carry out the commission quoting their lack of experience both in Hong Kong (they in fact have a major building in detailed design for a large HK client-the Peak Tram Terminus building) and on the diplomatic estate - preferring John R Harris (who have collaborated on the Leigh & Orange submission) who he has experience of from his time as HM Ambassador in Qatar.
2.2
It was clear that there was not going to be a consensus of agreement on the Farrell scheme. Mr Day said that he had been asked (by the Minister and AUSS) to "approve" the selection of Farrell and this approval he was not prepared to give. He felt there were too many issues still unresolved and too many questions unanswered. He would be putting these to London in due
course.
SR Whits
SR Whittle
Project Liaison Architect
MPG/OED
AP307
7 July 1992
TOTAL P.05