Hampshire County Council

Buildings Land and Procurement Panel Item *

13 October 2005

Asset Management Plan

Report by the Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services

How the conclusion in this report fits with the Corporate Strategy

This scheme will impact on the delivery of the following Corporate Aims.

Aim 2 - stewardship of the environment - by gathering intelligence about the Built Estate that informs strategic and best value investment decisions.

Aim 3 - achieving economic prosperity - by ensuring best use of resources for protecting the County Council's building and site assets.

Aim 4 - building strong and safe communities - ensuring buildings are safe to occupy and portray the county council's image as an Excellent Authority within the Community.

Aim 5 - improving services - by creating and maintaining high quality teaching and working environments for pupils and staff.

1

Summary

1.1

This report outlines:

· The approach being taken to continue the development of the condition element of the Education Asset Management Plan (AMP) and the achievements to date from the New Deal for Schools (NDS) funding generated from the AMP.

· Our response to the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) requirement to provide an update of the condition element of the AMP. This update is required to be submitted during the autumn of this year.

· A bid to the DfES for an exceptional additional allocation of (NDS) funding and an early allocation from the Building Schools for the Future(BSF) programme to complete the external recladding of the County Council's Scola 1 buildings.

· A proposal to develop a condition module for non Education buildings in the County Council stock as a first development towards an Asset Management Plan for this sector.

2.0

Development of the Education Asset Management Plan and Achievements to Date

2.1

In 1999 the DfES introduced a national requirement for an Education Asset Management Plan (AMP) across all local authorities in England and Wales.

2.2

The Education AMP comprises three modules, condition, suitability and sufficiency. This report focuses on the condition module which falls within the remit of the Landlord and Executive Member for Policy and Resources.

2.3

When the requirement to develop AMPs was originally introduced by the DfES in 1999 the condition module was the forerunner of the three modules and all authorities were given approximately six months to survey their school estate. Within this timeframe it was also required that an electronic database was created which could report back to central government with the condition information formatted to the DfES requirements.

2.4

As a guide, the County Council's Education AMP cost approximately £0.5m of professional time to establish and consumes about £75,000 of professional time annually to maintain and update. Significant AMP development work has taken place over the last two years, including the introduction of the electronic survey tablets which have already been used to resurvey 60% of primary schools and 100% of the secondary schools. A new data base of the condition findings has also been generated which is more robust and flexible to meet the anticipated future needs of AMP condition data. Work is ongoing to further develop the condition module to ensure it meets the following additional criteria.

· Capture the expenditure made by schools directly against the AMP database.

· Improve reporting mechanisms.

· Tracking benchmark information against the DFES analysis of AMP feedback.

2.5

The County Council's Education AMP has attracted over £69m of government funding over the last four years. This funding has made a significant contribution to tackling the backlog of repairs and maintenance in Hampshire schools. Appendix 1 details the expenditure breakdown across the highest priority issues. Condition AMP data is used in association with the corporate risk assessment to determine the priorities for funding which have been agreed as follows:

· Replacing life expired Scola cladding systems.

· Replacing other window systems.

· External redecoration and repairs.

· Renewal of flat roof coverings.

· External paving and hard landscaping.

· Completing the ballard heating programme.

· Renewing major components for heating and boilers together with electrical system and underground services.

· Repairs associated with capital schemes.

2.6

The DFES have indicated a further two phases of NDS condition funding for the years 2006/07, 07/08, which it is anticipated will amount to some £24m. Beyond this time it is uncertain as to whether NDS funding will continue. However, in the longer term Building Schools for the Future (BSF) could yield further investment in the secondary school sector, although current indications from the DfES anticipate Hampshire not being involved in this programme until 2011.

2.6

The development and maintenance of a condition module of the Education AMP has significantly assisted in a better understanding of this part of the built estate. It is proposed that the condition database for the non Education portfolio is brought into line with the approach developed for schools' data.

3.0

Submission of AMP condition data to the DfES - Autumn 2005

3.1

As required by the DfES our condition data was last submitted to them in 2003 which was then subject to a third party audit process. The DfES confirmed that they were satisfied with our submission. Our highest NDS award to date followed in the 2004/05 financial year. All local authorities have to resubmit their condition data to the DfES this Autumn and the `headlines' of our proposed submission are detailed below:

· In 1999 when our condition data was originally submitted we identified a backlog of repair and maintenance in Hampshire Schools of £231m. It will be a significant part of our submission this Autumn that we will be reporting an increased liability totalling £291m. There are a number of reasons for this increased liability.

· The technical content and quality of condition information has been updated and upgraded for the resurveyed school buildings now in the database.

· Tender price inflation since 1999 has created a 37% uplift on the original costs reported. This accounts for a significant proportion of the increased cost and the total liability.

· Updated costs for capital repairs solutions as opposed to patch and mend. A good example of this being the current strategy for the replacement of Scola 1 cladding which would have been reported in 1999 as a repair and redecoration programme.

· The effects of further deterioration in the schools built estate since the original survey. Although we have received a significant contribution from central government this is in fact only a proportion of the funding needed if we are to rectify all the backlog of repairs and maintenance.

3.2

It is understood other local authorities are predicting similar increases in the condition liability of their schools AMP data for similar reasons to those outlined above.

3.3

The overall increase in liability has affected some of the key indicators as follows.

· The backlog liability per pupil has risen from £1,343 in 2000 to £1,681 in 2005, (see appendix 3 which draws comparisons with other authorities).

· 11 Secondary schools in 2000 had a total liability above £2m, this has now increased to 37 secondary schools in 2005.

· 14 primary schools in 2000 had a total liability above £0.5m compared to 55 primary schools today.

3.4

While there clearly remains a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance items we need to balance this against the major achievements of the NDS programmes over recent years. The report to BL&PP on 5 April 2005 detailed many of these achievements which included the following:

· Some 50% of Hampshire schools have now experienced at least one major capital repair project and many have received several major projects since 2001.

· Over 70% of all SCOLA Mark 1 and 1a buildings have been reclad.

· 70 school buildings have had major re-roofing works.

· 114 heating replacement or electrical upgrading schemes have been completed.

· 58 modern fire alarm systems have been designed and implemented across the Education estate.

· 223 schools have benefited from enhanced external redecoration and repair programmes.

· Over 110,000 pupils (65%) are benefiting from the NDS capital repairs and external redecoration programmes that have been undertaken.

3.5

Even with the significant level of investment from NDS the increased liability in building condition is compatible with the predictions of the `maintenance time bomb' published by the office of national statistics.

3.6

Since the collection of condition data is an ongoing process across the country national benchmarks are of a dynamic nature which is illustrated by table 1 below.

Priority 1 to 3 work

2000

2003

2004

2005

DfES National Average

Maintenance Cost (£) per Pupil

824

1,046

1,070

_

Hampshire Schools Maintenance i) Cost (£) per Pupil

1,343

1,649*

1,383*

1,681

ii) Overall liability (£ m)

231

240

291

* DfES analysis. There is no official DfES overall cost data for total liability per authority with which to benchmark Hampshire's overall liability costs.

It can be seen from table 1 that the national average maintenance cost per pupil has ranged between 2000 and 2004 from £824 to £1,070 per pupil. Here in Hampshire the cost per pupil of outstanding maintenance items have ranged between 2000 and 2005 from £1,343 to £1,681 per pupil. Such a conclusion supports an argument for a bid for exceptional funding of NDS and BSF.

4.0

Bid to the DFES for an exceptional allocation of NDS condition and BSF funding

4.1

The Government acknowledges that more than £8 billion is needed for overdue repairs of school buildings in England. As a result of a question raised in the House of Commons earlier this year, it was reported (Times Education Supplement 10 June 2005) that Hampshire has the third largest overall backlog of school repairs and maintenance.

The Parliamentary Question was raised in connection with the fact that many authorities with the biggest backlog of repairs were not among the first to receive Government help from their Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. See appendices 2 and 3.

4.2

The DfES are reported as saying that authorities scheduled for rebuilding works later in the BSF programme could receive an early payment to fix their worse condition schools. Indications are that Hampshire will not feature in the BSF programme until at least 2011. It is therefore intended that we will make an exceptional bid to the DfES for additional funding to complete the SCOLA 1 recladding programme in the secondary school stock. Combined with this bid it is proposed to bid for additional NDS condition monies to complete the SCOLA recladding in the primary school stock. A combined bid to the DfES is therefore proposed to be submitted during October seeking an additional £15m which it is anticipated will complete the recladding of the remaining 18 SCOLA 1 school buildings in Hampshire.

5.0

Conclusions

5.1

The Education AMP has been used to generate over £69 million of NDS funding over the last 4 years. An indication from the DfES of a further £24 million of condition funding over the next 2 years has also been given. Beyond this point it is not certain as to whether NDS funding will continue.

5.2

The AMP condition database is constantly changing to reflect the updated process and as such can only been seen to represent a snapshot in time. In this sense the AMP condition module is the dynamic tool which helps us to manage the education estate. It is currently showing a total backlog of repairs and maintenance amounting to £291 million.

5.3

Appendix 2 shows Hampshire as the third highest condition liability in the country. Despite this, Hampshire have so far not been included in the government's Building Schools for the Future programme aimed at secondary schools. There is therefore a case for seeking an early payment from the DfES to fix the external recladding remaining to be undertaken on secondary school sites. Due to the quantity of outstanding condition issues in Hampshire a case can also be made for additional NDS condition monies from DfES to complete the SCOLA recladding in primary school buildings.

6.0

Recommendations

6.1

That the Buildings, Land and Procurement Panel advises the Executive Member for Policy and Resources that approval be given to:

1. Provide the DfES with headline AMP information on the Education estate as requested by them.

2. Submit to the DfES a bid for an exceptional allocation of £15 million for completion of the Scola 1 recladding programme. This bid to be composite of claims against Building Schools for the Future and NDS condition monies.