HOLYROOD'S controversial architect rejected a plan for a lighter and less complex structure for the new Scottish Parliament's roof.
A team of experts working on the design of the Holyrood debating chamber roof offered an alternative plan which would have been simpler to build and maintain than the highly complicated structure in which a half-tonne beam came loose from a fixing an
d dangled over the heads of MSPs this month.
But Enric Miralles, the Catalan architect who designed the £431m building, insisted the builders had to go ahead with the heavy decorative roof.
It has also emerged that the Parliament's new buildings insurance cover ran out a fortnight before the beam came loose, meaning that Holyrood chiefs face a protracted legal battle to get money back for the costs of fixing the problem and moving their meetings elsewhere.
MSPs were last week told that they must wait as long as two months before they will be allowed back into the chamber, which has been out of use for more than a fortnight since the beam came away from its bracket. The accident has been blamed on "shoddy workmanship," as a locator bolt was wrongly screwed in and later broke.
This weekend, Holyrood began preparations to fill the iconic debating chamber with scaffolding. During the next four weeks, technicians will fit clamps around the 'nodes' in the Parliament roof to ensure that the beams do not slip from their fixings.
The plan for a less complex roof emerged last week in a speech to structural engineers in London. David Lewis, a director with the firm of experts which designed the Holyrood roof, Ove Arup,
said: "We offered [Miralles] a more efficient alternative structure. But you couldn't say no to [Miralles]."
On the experience of working with the Catalan, who is widely regarded as one of the most visionary architects of his age, Lewis said: "He was a joy to work with, but you couldn't argue with the guy."
Lewis added that he was saddened by the news that a joint in the roof had failed but that he was "grateful" that no one had been injured.
The speech had been organised by the Institution of Structural Engineers months in advance - before the problem emerged with the beam.
A fortnight ago, Scotland on Sunday revealed that Lewis had highlighted concerns about the beams in the roof of the debating chamber following last-minute alterations that were carried out to make the chamber look more attractive.
And more evidence of his frustrations has come to light, including a letter written in June 2000, to the Parliament's architects, RMJM.
He said: "There are many areas of the buildings where previous structural advice has been ignored."
Lewis has not been available for comment since delivering his speech, despite inquiries through both the Institution of Structural Engineers, which organised the event, and his company.
Miralles' widow Benedetta Tagliabue, was also unavailable for comment.
The potential insurance problem has surfaced because the roof's period of automatic building insurance cover ran out a fortnight before the beam incident.
The defects liability insurance is a scheme whereby any fault which a buyer finds in a new building must be repaired by the contractor free of charge. It typically lasts for a year after a new building is finished and is not renewable.
In the case of the Scottish Parliament, the insurance expired on February 17. After that date the Scottish Parliament, in common with other government buildings, is not insured, with repair costs to be met by the taxpayer.
The development will be seen as evidence of the wretched luck which has dogged the Holyrood project. The new building was finished three years late and, at£431m, was 10 times the budget first envisaged.
The expiry of the liability insurance means Scottish Parliament chiefs will face either a long legal battle to get any money back from the builders or simply accept that the tax-payer will have to foot the bill.
A leading construction writer last night said that the problem of the badly fitted bolt raised questions about how effective Holyrood's building inspectors were at checking work on the new structure.
David Parker, technical editor of New Civil Engineer, said: "The explanation that the fault was down to a workman screwing the bolt in wrongly means we should all be wondering just who was checking up on this work. Someone will have had to examine the node and sign it off and any missing bolts should have been pretty obvious at the time when it was being inspected. There has been a massive dereliction of duty on someone's part."
