IN Brief:
- G F Tomlinson has completed a 3,100m² clinical training centre for the University of Nottingham within an existing campus building.
- The work included removing a RAAC roof through a phased programme under a rolling scaffold roof, with lower floors remaining in use.
- The refurbished centre includes simulation suites, clinical skills areas, and upgraded services and insulation, with reported local supply chain participation.
G F Tomlinson has completed a 3,100m² clinical training centre at the University of Nottingham, combining the conversion of existing university accommodation with replacement of a reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roof. The scheme has been delivered within the Pharmacy and Psychology building at University Park Campus, where lower floors remained in use during a phased programme of major roof and internal works.
The Clinical Training Centre provides new teaching and simulation facilities for the university’s School of Medicine. Seven training suites, a simulated operating theatre, four clinical skills spaces, and five classrooms have been created, together with staff and student welfare areas, offices, meeting rooms, and social space. Rather than constructing an independent building, the project remodelled Level C of an existing structure and introduced a new entrance and reception.
A principal construction constraint was the original roof, which incorporated reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC). Replacement was undertaken within an occupied campus building rather than on a cleared site. Removing roof elements while lower floors remained operational required staged access and weather protection so that construction activity could progress without exposing the occupied accommodation to an uncontrolled open roof.
G F Tomlinson used a rolling scaffold roof over successive work areas, removing the RAAC in sections before completing the replacement roof. The removal was divided into six zones, and the contractor described a new Bauder structural insulated felt roofing system. Building services were adapted to separate the remodelled floor from the retained accommodation as the replacement progressed. The published details do not establish the temporary works design or the individual load paths for the roof support system.
Teaching and other university activities continued on the lower floors during the works, limiting where the contractor could place temporary supports, move materials, and isolate services. The rolling scaffold roof provided protection while individual zones were opened and reconstructed. Dust, noise, and access arrangements would have needed coordination with campus operations, although the project team has not released temporary works calculations or quantified the limits on occupation during each phase.
The wider construction team included AECOM as project manager, AHR Architects as lead designer, and Waterman Structures for civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering. Their coordination supported the roof intervention and the remodelling of the floor beneath it, which had to accommodate new clinical teaching requirements alongside the retained building structure and services.
The team had to coordinate a roof replacement and new internal use within one existing structural envelope. Roof works affected overhead weather protection and mechanical installations, while the floor below was being reconfigured for the clinical training rooms. The retained building limited the freedom to change structural openings or service routes without checking their effects on adjacent accommodation; the project report does not specify which individual alterations required structural strengthening.
The refurbishment created specialist teaching rooms within the retained building fabric. The simulated theatre, clinical skills rooms, and teaching suites required a layout different from the former accommodation, while staff rooms, meeting spaces, and circulation areas had to be integrated on Level C. Earlier construction updates also identified air handling units and cooling plant being positioned on the roof, alongside ongoing mechanical and electrical installation.
Energy performance formed another part of the scope. The project incorporated more efficient mechanical and electrical systems, roof and wall insulation improvements, and replacement of the remaining single-glazed windows with higher-performance double glazing. The project team has not published a verified post-completion energy-use reduction, so the installed measures should be distinguished from measured operational savings.
G F Tomlinson reports that 77% of project spending and 72% of labour were sourced within 20 miles of the site. It also records 98% engagement with small and medium-sized businesses, 19% of spending directed to micro businesses, 15 weeks of work experience, and 128 apprenticeship weeks. The contractor says all construction waste was diverted from landfill, but the published figures do not distinguish reuse from recycling or other treatment routes.
The contractor previously worked with the university on the Biodiscovery Institute, Central Building refurbishment, and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Building. Those projects have different specifications, but they illustrate the continuing construction programme on the campus. On the clinical training scheme, access to the Pharmacy and Psychology building had to be maintained during a roof replacement and a complete remodelling of its upper teaching floor.
The finished centre now provides dedicated clinical simulation and teaching accommodation for the School of Medicine within a refurbished university building. The reported scope includes new services, insulation, glazing, and roof construction, but neither a measured post-occupancy energy saving nor a final construction contract value has been made public. Those figures would be needed to assess operational performance and final project expenditure beyond the completed works.
