What will it cost to refurbish our crumbling Houses of Parliament?

From an engineer’s perspective, renovating historic or listed buildings is one of the trickiest projects you can undertake.

Such is the case with the Palace of Westminster, which has long been unfit for purpose and is in dire need of a complete overhaul to bring it up to current working standards.

It is a gargantuan task, with some advocating that, perhaps, it might be better to construct a new parliament building on a different site and repurpose the existing political palace.

Obviously, such a proposal sparks instant backlash. But perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at what refurbishing parliament actually entails.

A building has occupied the Westminster site since medieval times. Following a devastating fire in 1834, it was largely rebuilt by Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin. Back then, it was regarded as a “state of the art” building – but it is certainly not anymore.

For one thing, it isn’t big enough to accommodate current capacity. Offices are cramped and claustrophobic.

Then there’s the highly porous Anston stone, used as the primary structural material, which has experienced rapid decay due to pollution from nineteenth-century coal burning and emissions from the capital’s traffic-choked roads.

Sporadically conducted piecemeal work has been inadequate. The whole building is now full of fire hazards and wouldn’t pass a modern health-and-safety test. Significant works are needed to the structure and all of the services to bring it up to today’s standards. There are myriad technical, structural, drainage, roofing, glazing, mechanical, electrical, sprinkler, heating and ventilation issues that all need specialist consideration.

A detailed survey to construct a digital building information model is badly needed, followed by more individual surveys to determine the extent of works. The building fabric has to be looked at first, including stonework, roofing and fenestration. If that cannot be done, the whole project is a non-starter.

Then there’s the consideration of the existing electrics, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, which will probably all have to be replaced.

One has to ask if the current plans are worth the predicted expenditure.

Costs were initially estimated at around £4bn, but there have recently been indications that this must increase. It is not even possible to accurately price the work, because there are too many unknowns, which does not exactly inspire public confidence.

Are the public coffers simply to be flung open to the preferred bidder, who will get what they want at the end of the project (if it ever ends)? It beggars belief that we have not learnt our lesson in the UK about starting major projects without them being properly scoped and costed.

Instead, why not spend a few years carrying out surveys so it can be costed properly? Then politicians can make an informed decision.

While a new building comes with its own problems (in terms of costs, space, and historic attachment to the current palace), it is an option worth considering. Another alternative is to stay put, construct a new building, move, then refurbish the original, which would ensure that the entire process is costed and planned properly.

At this point in time, when our politicians have both eyes on the ballot box, it looks unlikely that parliament would accept this option. From a practical perspective, however, it makes sense.

Crucially, we must provide a solution to the challenge with long-term value, but not at the cost of writing a blank cheque to those involved in delivering this project.