Implementation of the Review of Education Capital (The James Review) RIBA Response October 2011

Transcription

1 Implementation of the Review of Education Capital (The James Review) RIBA Response October 2011 Introduction The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and its members. It has been promoting architecture and architects since being awarded its Royal Charter in The 40,000-strong professional institute is committed to serving the public interest through good design, and represents 85 per cent of architects in the UK as well as a significant number of international members. Condition survey 1) What data on the condition of the local estate should be used alongside pupil and student numbers data, as the basis of a fair allocation to address need across the range of children's and young people's institutions and facilities? Our view is that condition is made up of two components, the Fabric Condition and the Spatial Condition which alongside overall accommodation for the defined pupil and student numbers represents fitness for purpose. Under the fabric, and the spatial condition we can assess how successfully a building is functioning for teaching and learning, how efficiently it can be managed but also its potential to adapt and be suitable for future changes. It is very possible that a school building could fulfil all fabric condition criteria, but still not be a well functioning school. The RIBA believe that the spatial condition of a school building should be a key part of the condition survey as it gives a better indication of current needs of our school building stock. The fabric condition survey should include the following elements: Fabric Condition major & sub elements 1 Roofs Flat/pitched Structure Coverings & insulation drainage 2 Floors & Stairs Ground/upper floors Structure Screed & finish Staircases Structure Treads &risers Soffit finish Fabric Condition major & sub elements 7 Mechanical services Heat source and equipment Heating, distribution and controls Hot and cold water, storage tanks and equipment, distribution Gas distribution Ventilation Air conditioning 8 Electrical Services Control gear Power, wiring, fittings Lighting, wiring, fittings Fire alarms, intruder alarms, lighting protection, communication systems, lifts and hoists

2 3 Ceilings Ground floor Upper floors 4 External walls, windows and doors Walls Structure External linings/finishes Internal linings/finishes Windows and doors Framing Glazing ironmongery 5 Internal walls and doors Walls and partitions Structure Linings/finishes Doors and glazed screens Framing Glazing Ironmongery 6 Sanitary services Toilets/Kitchens Fittings Waste plumbing 9 Decorations External/internal 10 Fixed furniture and fittings Teaching, science, technology, general Non-teaching, kitchen, staff, etc 11 External areas Roads and car parks Paths and pedestrian paved areas Soft landscaping Walls, fences and gates Ancillary premises Outdoor swimming pools Drainage Mains services playgrounds 12 Playing fields MUGAs generally The fabric condition survey will include things like the presence of asbestos, DDA compliance, Legionella, DEC s, FRA, Health and Safety, energy efficiency of component materials and all environmental conditions, including: damp, cold, draughts, acoustic and noise penetration, ventilation, daylight etc. The fabric condition of each element should be assessed, possibly using the following grades: - Grade A Good, Performing as intended and operating efficiently. - Grade B Satisfactory. Performing as intended but exhibiting minor deterioration. - Grade C Poor. Exhibiting major defects and/or not operating as intended. - Grade D Bad. Life expired and/or serious risk of imminent failure. Costs for repairing or renewing defective elements can be established and then the work can be prioritised, possibly in the following way of: Urgent work, Essential work, Desirable work, Long term work. An essential part of the building fabric condition survey should assess how it will meet or is meeting its statutory responsibility on carbon reduction.

3 The spatial condition survey would include the number, size and other characteristics of internal spaces, the area and other characteristics of external areas and the Health and Safety requirements of Building/site layout. Typically it should include the following elements: - number, size, shape and location of spaces; - environmental conditions; - fittings and fixed furniture; - information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure; - health and safety/security issues; - accessibility and DDA compliance. In assessing the spatial condition all spaces internal and external, teaching and non-teaching should be assessed against the criteria of their impact on teaching, learning, the curriculum and efficient management of the school. The possible categories might be as follows: - being unable to teach the curriculum; - teaching methods being inhibited; - management or organisation of school affected adversely; - pupil or staff morale or pupil behaviour affected adversely. An important component of assessing the spatial condition of a building is to assess its potential to adapt with remodelling/extension to meeting the changing needs of the curriculum. Some of this information can be derived from the fabric condition survey which will record the materials used, location of services and therefore the responsiveness to change. Costs for extending, refurbishing or renewal can be determined and the prioritisation established in accordance with the criteria for their impact on teaching, learning, curriculum and management described above. 2) Access to, and quality of, condition data can be variable. Do you have robust and complete data available, or have you proposals on how it can be gathered and managed most effectively, but at the same time with minimal cost? It is our understanding that many local authorities still collect condition data on their school estate using the methodology guidance previously issued by the DfES. Although the quality of the survey information was originally audited by the DfES, this has not been done for several years. We would therefore suggest that the most efficient and speediest way of achieving a robust national database would be to give local authorities and other Responsible Bodies responsibility for updating or creating a full condition

4 survey in accordance with the original guidance, and then for the DfE to carry out an appropriate validation exercise. The RIBA believes that, in addition to the physical condition of the fabric, the success of schools can be impeded by aspects of the design and layout of the accommodation. As part of the condition survey, a spatial analysis (or spatial condition) that examines the ability of the building estate to support the effective delivery of the curriculum to students, as required by headteachers and Governing bodies, should also be carried out. Our suggested methodology for this is described above, once again much of the information has been collected by local authorities under methodology guidance issued by the Department. This is an important task that needs to be carried out by people with a good understanding of schools design as well as the way in which schools function, and we believe that architects are well placed to facilitate this work. There are many experienced architects in the UK who possess the necessary skills to tease out the spatial complexities that relate to teaching, learning and management. Flexible capital budget with local decision-making 3) Do you think that the Department should move to a system for capital investment that apportions the available capital as a single, flexible budget for each local area, and that investment should then be determined through a specific local process, involving all Responsible Bodies and ultimately hosted by the Local Authority? We support a move to a system of capital investment that apportions the available capital as a single, flexible budget for each local area, with investment determined through a specific local process involving the Responsible Bodies and hosted by the Local Authority. No definition of local area has been defined, but we would expect that in most cases it would be the local authority area administered by a single Children s Service. However, in some situations we suggest that it would be a group of local authorities where there is substantial migration of pupils across local authority boundaries. 4a) What do you consider to be the benefits or risks in establishing a single capital funding model of this nature? A clear benefit is to enhance local decision-making utilising the knowledge and expertise locally. Wherever possible, we are in favour of local processes and believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. The benefits of local processes are the closer connection to needs and thus the greater knowledge and understanding of requirements leading to inevitably more effective and targeted outcomes. We note that in some cases it may be difficult for a local body involving a number of Responsible Bodies to reach a consensus on capital allocations, for example where new schools have been established in direct competition to existing schools. We therefore consider that, as the democratic representatives

5 of an area, the local authorities should have the final decision in complex matters that involve multiple Responsible Bodies. There is also a risk that local processes and decision making are over-ruled by central government demands (for example free schools); we believe this would eliminate any benefits to be had by devolved local processes. 4b) How would you address the risks you have identified? The RIBA believes that, to operate effectively and transparently, there should be a robust process for submitting and considering submissions by Responsible Bodies to the local body for consideration. There are many local authorities that have in the past used forums, such as the Schools Forums and Primary Capital Programme Panels to review data across the whole school estate before funds are allocated in accordance with a public statement of priority. These have been effective, the experience and expertise clearly exists and it accords with the government s localism agenda. 4c) Specifically, how could the local area decision-making arrangements be established to ensure that the process represents the range of Responsible Bodies, takes account of all needs, leads to fair prioritisation of investment within the available resource, and is not unduly bureaucratic? We suggest that this should include the submission of a school development plan, describing the long term accommodation aspirations and physical requirements, including some kind of masterplan for the school site. This would ensure that the proposal being considered makes proper provision for future planned developments, and will represent a sound investment. Submissions would also need to provide an educational justification so that their wider benefits can be evaluated alongside other submissions. 5) Would you prefer to see the current funding model used for the allocations retained until at least 2015 or for the foreseeable future? What are the risks and benefits of this approach? The proposed funding model should be driven by pragmatics and should not be rushed. The proposed condition survey plays a key role in this and thus adequate time should be allowed for this part of the process to be properly planned and effectively carried out so that it fulfills its potential. Although the recent practice of allocating funding for a one year period might give flexibility to establish and respond to the condition survey it limits the opportunity to secure the greatest efficiencies of multiple year planning. 6) Should some of the ring-fenced programmes currently managed centrally, for example maintenance of Academies and Sixth Form Colleges, become ringfenced programmes managed locally? What would be the risks and benefits? Ring-fenced programmes currently managed centrally should not become ring-fenced locally. If local processes are to be fair and effective, and the principles of Localism to be fully realised, ring-fencing should be avoided.

6 7a) Would you support a model that includes a fair proportion of maintenance capital being directly allocated to Responsible Bodies that have assets in several local authority areas, so that they can make their own decisions on how best to deploy that maintenance funding across their estate? What are the benefits and risks of this approach? A substantial amount of Government funding for investment in school buildings is allocated direct to schools as Devolved Formula Capital for them to spend in the most appropriate way. In reality this funding is used for a mixture of maintenance and improvements/extensions to buildings. We believe this an essential part of the system of local management of schools, giving schools both responsibility and freedoms in relation to their buildings. However there is a risk that some schools lack the skills to spend this funding efficiently and effectively. We therefore suggest that Responsible Bodies should have the power to review schools proposals for spending their devolved capital, ideally checking that they comply with the condition issues identified in the fabric and spatial condition surveys and the school development plans described above. We support the current system that allocates substantial Government funding for capital maintenance direct to Responsible Bodies including local authorities and voluntary aided bodies. We believe this arrangement should continue, and we see no reason why responsible bodies such as dioceses and Academy sponsors have schools in several local authority areas should not receive this funding direct. We are aware that in some situations there is confusion about which maintenance liabilities are the responsibility of the schools (using their Devolved Formula Capital) with that of the Responsible Body (using Capital Maintenance funding). We therefore suggest that the DfE should issue clear guidance on this split to Responsible Bodies so that school governing bodies are clear about their responsibilities. 7b) How would such Responsible Bodies be identified? See above 8) Do you agree with the principle that there should be a Local Investment Plan to support local and national transparency and better procurement? If so, what should be included in a Local Investment Plan? The principle of Local Investment Plans is sound, with plans based on the fabric and spatial condition surveys of the building estate. At the most local level, it is important that each school is encouraged to develop their own specific long-term plan which is derived from their condition surveys (see reference to School Development Plans above). The role of the Local Investment Plan should be to gather the individual plans of each school and prioritise them, taking into account both maintenance and capital improvement works spending. We also support the existing arrangement whereby Devolved Formula Capital allocated to individual schools can be rolled over to subsequent years to enable larger projects. Local Investment Plans should enable local procurement to take place across a range of

7 individual smaller projects which might be grouped together for efficiency providing a strong case for local procurement. 9) Do you agree that each local authority area should provide the department with an initial Local Investment Plan in spring 2012, drawing from the respective plans that all Responsible Bodies make for their own allocations? Since these plans should be derived from school condition surveys and school development plans, this timetable in considered unrealistic. 10) Do you believe there are other models which incentivise the creative and efficient use of capital at school level? We would support models which incentivise and reward schools who can manage their capital well, but are concerned that these arrangements should not be allowed to undermine wider plans made by Responsible Bodies and the local area body. However, by the same token, it is important that there are arrangements where local authorities or Responsible Bodies can intervene where schools are lacking in premises skills or need support. National contracting and procurement 11) Do you agree that there are benefits and efficiencies to be gained in building and capital maintenance from using national expertise, national procurement frameworks, a standard contract with suppliers and national project management? What do you consider to be the potential advantages and disadvantages? It is important that the individual issues relating to centralised procedures are separated out as each warrants a particular response. - We agree that making national expertise available to local bodies lacking in expertise has benefits. However, areas with considerable local expertise would not necessarily benefit, and they should not be forced to use national frameworks, etc. - National procurement frameworks can save time and money, but can reduce competition, as very few contractors are large enough to bid. Reduction in competition inevitably reduces quality and innovation. There are considerable risks of repeating the mistakes resulting from BSF of bundling projects with limited monitoring of outcomes, thus reducing the incentive to build at a high standard and be competitive. However regional frameworks are currently in place that successfully deliver a range of new build and refurbishment educational projects (Local Authority frameworks, EASI framework) and we do not believe these should be dismantled in favour of national frameworks. - National procurement is much less beneficial when responding to the greater challenge of refurbishment as well as more complex projects such as extensions and re-use where bespoke solutions are required. - There may be a proportion of new build schools where national procurement of standardised solutions would be efficient, however it is likely that the majority of the school estate going forward will be refurbishment and reuse projects. Moreover there are some projects

8 where site or local requirements render a standard solution inappropriate, and they should not be imposed in these situations. - There are significant problems with centrally held and managed contracts, including: little flexibility in specifications; they are difficult for SMEs to access; innovation is inhibited and more complex; and time consuming management protocols and reporting systems are necessary. - The availability of national project management could be of considerable benefit where local teams do not have the expertise. 12) Do you have evidence to show that local or regional procurement arrangements offer better value for money for certain types of projects or within certain values? If so, please describe. In contrast to BSF, the Government s Primary Capital Programme has been a great success, with a number of highly successful new or remodelled schools having been delivered. Local authorities and voluntary aided bodies have been given freedom to select the most appropriate procurement routes for both design and construction. Various forms of innovative procurement have been applied, including local and regional frameworks and partnering arrangements between contractors and local authorities, and in many cases these have provided excellent value for money and speedy delivery to high construction standards. Indeed many of the new build primary schools are exemplars of sustainable construction, and several have received awards: - St Luke's C of E Primary School won the 2010 RIBA Sorrell Foundation Schools Award - Knop Law Primary School, Sandal Magna Community Primary School, and Michael Faraday Community School all won RIBA awards in 2011 Local authorities obviously have capital investment programmes for buildings other than schools and colleges. In many cases these are very substantial and the local authorities already have partnering or framework arrangements, covering their broad range of projects, that offer excellent value for money, frequently using local sub-contractors and labour. National procurement of schools project could compromise the economies available in these situations. 13) Are there limits - contract value or type of project - where you think the case can best be made for local or regional contract procurement? Please specify below. The RIBA believes that procurement models should be adapted to the contract value or type of project. The table below demonstrates how that might be defined and maximised for central to local procurement.

9 14) What criteria do you suggest for projects to be potentially exempt from project management by the central body? As central procurement for schools is currently unknown, and potentially problematic for a range of smaller and complex building projects, there is a case for central procurement being provided as an offer (rather than a requirement) for local authorities to opt into. In this way, individual or groups of local authorities with considerable expertise and established frameworks are able to procure locally, and those without the expertise are able to opt into the centralised system. It could also be the case that local authorities tender to both local contractors and the national body, helping to prove or disprove any benefits derived from national contracting going forward. This sort of system avoids the one-size-fits-all approach of national contracting as the only option. 15) Where local or regional procurement or project management is used, how can its benefits and learning be shared so as to achieve the same gains in all procurement? It is essential that there is transparency of data regarding both post occupancy evaluations and contractors costings in order to learn from different procurement methods. It should be the role of central government to gather and share this knowledge effectively. There are also lessons to be learnt from the current programme of primary school delivery (the Primary Capital Programme), which has had considerable success procuring locally and through regional frameworks and this knowledge should be part of national learning.

10 Other issues not covered by the consultation: 1) Standardisation Standardisation that is intelligently thought out is welcomed, and should not exclude architects as the whole process is still highly complex and would require the skills of experienced schools architects. However, standardised drawings of whole schools may inhibit competitiveness and reduce innovation and would be difficult to adapt to the specific requirements of a site and the needs of a school We believe that standardisation can work and be an effective means of reducing costs. The standardisation of certain components, systems and processes along the supply chain and certain elements of modular design within buildings would be desirable. However, the Government should investigate ways of doing this across other forms of public procurement, in order to generate the economies of scale required to make this work. Refurbishment and extension projects are the key problem area when considering standardisation. These are much more complex projects which require highly bespoke solutions. Standardisation also raises problems regarding how detailed specifications will be. A detailed specification will mean many projects (particularly refurbs) will entail pages and pages of derogations. It would also reduce competition between contractors and constrict the sorts of construction methods and systems possible. Detailed specifications and standardised templates are only likely to be value for money on greenfield sites. 2) Low carbon agenda We are concerned that the DfE are not joined up with other government departments on national carbon targets and that the consultation document does not refer to carbon. There is a stated commitment for undertaking post occupancy evaluations (POE). Soft Landings provides a good methodology for POE that enables a comparison between educational buildings of building performance, and facilitates an early involvement with the school community during the design process. 3) Broader government policy

11 We are concerned that the schools review may not be in line with broader government policy for localism particularly, policies that point towards centralised systems of procurement and standardisation. We are concerned that the schools capital review may lead to a separate approach on schools from the construction strategy. For example the construction strategy looks at fixed cost and the schools review fixed specification. 4) Architectural competitions The RIBA believe that innovation in design and construction can be fostered through architectural competitions. A proportion of school projects set aside for collaborative competitions partnering architects with contractors can advance learning in school design and construction, fostering competitiveness leading to gains in value for money. The RIBA is well positioned to host competitions of this nature. For example, Southwark Primary School used a competition to fulfil a brief which looked at increased capacity, utilising existing four buildings and improving sustainability. The winning design created a very logical plan from the existing jumble of buildings maximising the integrity of the existing buildings with sensitive extensions and a high degree of flexibility. Resultsbooklets/SouthwarkSchoolsfortheFuture.pdf 5) Building user engagement The RIBA is concerned that the James Review appears to reject any form of user engagement because of the occasional excesses of headteacher influence and pupil distraction. We endorse the values given to Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) but believe it to be very important that we do engage teachers, other staff, governors, parents and the community in shaping the brief for the design, appraising the design solution and evaluating how successful the process has been; this can then feed productively in to a full POE. Embracing this sort of process seems to us essential in establishing true fitness for purpose. There are also less demanding ways that pupils valuable engagement can be harnessed as part of a learning experience on the built environment. We recognise that some methods of formal engagement have not always been well received but believe the process is an essential and valuable one in many cases. We would like to give our support to improving the effectiveness of tried and tested methods to quickly put in place a tool of choice for guiding building user engagement throughout the whole briefing, design and delivery process.