Parliament has published costed proposals to begin the long-planned restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, recommending an initial seven-year phase of works capped at £3bn to stabilise the building, prepare temporary accommodation, and enable future delivery decisions. The proposals do not approve full construction yet, but mark a formal shift from strategy and debate into controlled early delivery, reducing long-term risk, cost escalation and safety exposure while narrowing the programme to two viable delivery options.
Costed proposals formally published
On 5 February 2026, UK Parliament published the report Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals, setting out the most detailed financial and delivery framework to date for one of the UK’s most complex heritage infrastructure programmes.
The report has been issued by Parliament’s Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board and is presented jointly to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It provides cost ranges, programme sequencing, and recommendations on how Parliament should proceed.
Why restoration can no longer be delayed
The Palace of Westminster is an internationally significant heritage asset, but its condition has reached a critical point. According to the report building services and infrastructure have exceeded their design life, reactive maintenance has increased sharply in recent years; fire, asbestos and structural incidents continue to occur and only around 12% of the building currently has step-free access.
Parliament estimates that maintaining the building in its current state costs approximately £1.5m per week, without addressing underlying system failures. The report concludes that continuing with incremental repairs would lead to an increasingly expensive and unsafe managed decline.
What the £3bn phase one works include
The Client Board recommends that Parliament approve an initial package of phase one works, lasting up to seven years and capped at £3bn (excluding inflation).
Phase one is not the full restoration. Instead, it is designed to create the conditions for safe and efficient long-term delivery. The works include:
These works would proceed regardless of the final delivery option chosen, ensuring early progress without committing Parliament to irreversible decisions.
Delivery options reduced to two
The report recommends reducing the programme to two delivery options, to limit cost and programme risk:
Two other options (continued presence and the original EMI variant) are explicitly discounted due to excessive duration, higher safety risk, and operational disruption. Parliament is expected to make a final decision on the preferred long-term option no later than 2030, once further design, cost and risk information is available.
Programme scale, duration and cost context
The report sets out indicative cost and duration ranges (excluding inflation):
While the figures are substantial, the Client Board notes that delaying action increases overall cost exposure by an estimated £70m per year, plus £250–350m per year in construction inflation impacts.
Implications for construction and skills
The Restoration and Renewal Programme is expected to support between 1,500 and 4,000 construction jobs per year, create up to 1,000 apprenticeships and traineeships, generate sustained demand for specialist heritage, MEP, logistics and safety expertise and involve SMEs and regional supply chains across the UK.
Strategic partners will be contractually required to support broad geographic participation and skills development.
Accessibility, safety and environmental outcomes
All delivery options are designed to achieve the same end-state improvements, including:
These outcomes are embedded in the statutory framework of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
What happens next
The report will now be debated by both Houses of Parliament. If approved, phase one works could commence during 2026, with procurement, detailed design and enabling works progressing in parallel. The earliest large-scale decant is not expected before 2032, allowing Parliament to maintain legislative continuity while addressing critical building risks.
Final interpretation
This publication does not approve the full restoration of the Palace of Westminster. Instead, it marks a decisive transition from long-running debate to controlled delivery. By funding a capped, time-limited phase one package and narrowing delivery options, Parliament is choosing to reduce risk, contain cost escalation and stabilise a nationally significant asset, while preserving flexibility over the final delivery model.
For the construction industry, this signals that Westminster restoration is no longer theoretical. It is entering an early delivery phase governed by evidence, sequencing and accountability rather than ambition alone.
On 5 February 2026, UK Parliament published the report Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster: the costed proposals, setting out the most detailed financial and delivery framework to date for one of the UK’s most complex heritage infrastructure programmes.
The report has been issued by Parliament’s Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Client Board and is presented jointly to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It provides cost ranges, programme sequencing, and recommendations on how Parliament should proceed.
Why restoration can no longer be delayed
The Palace of Westminster is an internationally significant heritage asset, but its condition has reached a critical point. According to the report building services and infrastructure have exceeded their design life, reactive maintenance has increased sharply in recent years; fire, asbestos and structural incidents continue to occur and only around 12% of the building currently has step-free access.
Parliament estimates that maintaining the building in its current state costs approximately £1.5m per week, without addressing underlying system failures. The report concludes that continuing with incremental repairs would lead to an increasingly expensive and unsafe managed decline.
What the £3bn phase one works include
The Client Board recommends that Parliament approve an initial package of phase one works, lasting up to seven years and capped at £3bn (excluding inflation).
Phase one is not the full restoration. Instead, it is designed to create the conditions for safe and efficient long-term delivery. The works include:
- construction of temporary Chambers and office accommodation
- refurbishment and preparation of buildings on the Northern Estate
- acquisition and fit-out of the QEII Conference Centre for temporary use
- early works to Victoria Tower interiors
- preparation for restoration of the medieval Cloister Court
- underground construction and enabling works
- installation of temporary services, utilities and logistics infrastructure
These works would proceed regardless of the final delivery option chosen, ensuring early progress without committing Parliament to irreversible decisions.
Delivery options reduced to two
The report recommends reducing the programme to two delivery options, to limit cost and programme risk:
- Full decant, where both Houses vacate the Palace for the majority of works
- Enhanced Maintenance and Improvement+ (EMI+), involving phased decant and staged works
Two other options (continued presence and the original EMI variant) are explicitly discounted due to excessive duration, higher safety risk, and operational disruption. Parliament is expected to make a final decision on the preferred long-term option no later than 2030, once further design, cost and risk information is available.
Programme scale, duration and cost context
The report sets out indicative cost and duration ranges (excluding inflation):
- Full decant: 19–24 years, £8.4–11.5bn
- EMI+: 38–61 years, £11.8–18.7bn
While the figures are substantial, the Client Board notes that delaying action increases overall cost exposure by an estimated £70m per year, plus £250–350m per year in construction inflation impacts.
Implications for construction and skills
The Restoration and Renewal Programme is expected to support between 1,500 and 4,000 construction jobs per year, create up to 1,000 apprenticeships and traineeships, generate sustained demand for specialist heritage, MEP, logistics and safety expertise and involve SMEs and regional supply chains across the UK.
Strategic partners will be contractually required to support broad geographic participation and skills development.
Accessibility, safety and environmental outcomes
All delivery options are designed to achieve the same end-state improvements, including:
- wholesale replacement of building services
- major upgrades to fire safety and life-safety systems
- remediation of asbestos
- conservation of stonework and historic fabric
- increase in step-free access from 12% to at least 60% of floor area
- energy efficiency improvements targeting around a 40% reduction in energy use
- climate-resilient drainage and rainwater systems
These outcomes are embedded in the statutory framework of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
What happens next
The report will now be debated by both Houses of Parliament. If approved, phase one works could commence during 2026, with procurement, detailed design and enabling works progressing in parallel. The earliest large-scale decant is not expected before 2032, allowing Parliament to maintain legislative continuity while addressing critical building risks.
Final interpretation
This publication does not approve the full restoration of the Palace of Westminster. Instead, it marks a decisive transition from long-running debate to controlled delivery. By funding a capped, time-limited phase one package and narrowing delivery options, Parliament is choosing to reduce risk, contain cost escalation and stabilise a nationally significant asset, while preserving flexibility over the final delivery model.
For the construction industry, this signals that Westminster restoration is no longer theoretical. It is entering an early delivery phase governed by evidence, sequencing and accountability rather than ambition alone.
|
Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus
Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist |
