Introduction and Background • PAP is one of the 9 Organs of the AU • AU Decision Assembly/AU/Dec. 37 (III), SA selected as Host of the PAP during the July AU Summit in 2004. • SA was selected based on the impressive bid document submitted. 1
Bid Document and Host Country Agreement • The bid document committed SA to: – To provide a dedicated, state of the art, fully equipped and unique structure to house the PAP complex, designed to reflect the rich talent and diversity of all the peoples of the continent. – Envisaged holding a Continent-Wide Design Competition (CWDC) for African Architects to design the PAP Building. 2
Bid Document and Host Country Agreement Cont. – PAP was to be housed, temporarily at Gallagher Estates, Midrand, for a five year period. • The Host Country Agreement: – SA commits to providing a dedicated, equipped and furnished permanent structure at its expense to house the PAP Complex, which shall not be occupied by any other organisation, company or government agency. 3
Site Identification and the Continent Wide Design Competition (CWDC) • South Africa won the bid to host the PAP; winning it from other members states including Libya and Egypt. • A site for construction of the Permanent Building was identified in Randjiesfontein plot 405 -JR. Headway Hill. • At the time no environmental issues were identified. 4
Site Identification and the CWDC Cont. • The identified site as well as the modalities of the CWDC was presented to the IMC on the 7 th March 2007. • UNESCO Standard regulations for International Competitions in architecture and town planning were used. • The CWDC Brief provided the entrants with relevant statistics such as surroundings, climate, transport routes, topography, vegetation and geotechnical conditions, etc. 5
Site Identification and the CWDC Cont. • The brief stated that the PAP Complex must be a landmark building reflecting the aspirations of the African Continent and reflect the richness and diversity of Africa. • The brief specified the square meterage of the building as 19738. 75 m 2. As per the signed space plan (signed 26 January 2007) between DIRCO (then DFA) and DPW. 6
Site Identification and the CWDC Cont. • In October 2007, the winner was announced as Durban-based South African company, Earth. Lab Architects. 7
Management of the Project. • IMC Meeting January 2008 decided DPW would lead the construction. DPW requested to cost the building for National Treasury to provide funding to DIRCO. DPW costed the building at R 663 million. They were requested to verify and this amount and came back with a final amount, which they committed to in writing, of R 717 Million. 8
Management of the Project Cont. • DPW appointed a project manager. Proposed undertaking a compartmental approach to building. • DPW appointed consultants to assist with final design. Included herein were environmental consultants. This company provided a clear EIA and stated that the dampness of the soil was likely due to a leaking sewerage pipe. A wetland was not identified. 9
Management of the Project Cont. • EIA approved with a precondition that trees are planted on the land; Town Planning was approved and the Bulk Civil Earthworks contractors were appointed and completed their digging in July 2009. • Concurrent to the above the final design was undergoing completion. This process was a collaboration of the architects and DPW’s appointed consultants, and was being overseen by the DPW Project Manager. 10
Costing • September 2009 DPW reported to DIRCO an increase in the costing as a result of increased space requirements • Simultaneously Environment raised matter of wetland 11
Costing • Due to the significant increase in budget as well as the considerable environmental concerns raised (wetland implications) the project was stopped, further money was spent to protect the Bulk Civil Earthworks investment. 12
Environment • Task Team established to investigate way forward • After the Task Team was established, a third dimension was added to the challenge of building on Headway Hill. Environmental problems were identified - the site was identified as a wetland home to red species. 13
Options • The options available were to continue construction at Headway Hill or to consider Gallaghar Estate as an alternate option • Initial Studies conducted showed Gallaghar to be a viable option 14
Options • However, preliminary discussions with owners of Gallaghar indicated a considerably higher purchase price than anticipated • Gallaghar as an option became considerably more expensive 15
Environment • Discussions with Dept of Enviornment – in order to protect Headway, a building must be constructed thereon • Make section 24 application to build and implement measures to protect the site • Therefore Minister of DPW and DM DIRCO recommended continue building at Headway 16
Way Forward • DPW to make necessary application to DEA • Because of financial constraints investigate PPP – DIRCO and DPW to register PPP with Treasury • DPW and DIRCO to prepare Cabinet Memo on status quo to Cabinet 17
Скачать презентацию Introduction and Background PAP is one of
6425a2c24668be57a8422efc2696bdf6.ppt