DRAFT CONTINUATION
DSR 11C (Revised 12/89)
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
Unclassified
expect both the Post and BC to take every advantage of co-location to reduce their running costs, but it is most unlikely that this would extend, for example, to sharing a Management Section.
3.
As have you, the Steering Committee found faults with Restricted the TFC scheme, and spent some time discussing how they could best
be put right. I should emphasise that these are only first outline designs, and that our task is to identify the scheme that shows most potential for effective further development, with the Architect and user departments: we are not deliberating on each
scheme as offered.
PRIVACY
MARKING
On those faults you identify in paras 7 and 8
of TUR:
In Confidence
7A. Vehicular entrance is permitted only along one fairly short strip of frontage, and the drawback you point out is therefore common to all schemes. TFC also, I agree, combines this with the main pedestrian access (but there is another emergency entrance/exit via the flats). With some design development, Security Dept is content.
7B. You may be under-estimating the scope on floor 6 for an excellent Commercial Section reception, conference and display area, certainly capable of handling trade missions, Kachievable by re-arranging D10, D20, J5 and J6). Larger commercial and other events only would be in the multi-purpose hall (in the BC building), but I agree that a simpler route Connection between the two buildings should be considered at design development stage.
Stock No. C002B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.