RESTRICTED
additional funds to cover the entire shortfall. The second was to reduce the size of the building. The third was for OED to provide a contribution out of its capital budget for the rest of the world.
5. On the first option, OED thought that the Treasury should be prepared to meet the extra costs attributable to sterling devaluation (though this would need to be carefully presented) but would be unlikely to agree to provide all the extra funds needed. In order to secure from the Treasury any increase in real terms over what was originally budgeted we would need to show that we had done everything possible to achieve savings in the building costs. OED thought that we should aim to find about £2.5 million pounds. On the third option, OED said that they might be able to find some money to offset costs but that they were under the same budgetary constraints as everyone else.
6. OED identified the following options for reducing building costs:
(i) Deleting the car park on the British Council side of the new building (£0.5 million).
(ii) Deleting the residential component of the Consulate General (£2.7 million).
(iii) Deleting one floor throughout the new building (£1.5 million).
1.
After discussion, the Committee reluctantly concluded that a combination of the three options would be needed in order to achieve the required savings. The Committee agreed that it would be a false economy in the long run to remove the residential accommodation since this provided value for money and flexibility in the use of the building. Instead the Committee favoured deleting a whole floor of the building.
fut.cons.NAT
SLN
RESTRICTED
3