Objectives of the consultation
This consultation sought views on a number of key recommendations arising from the Independent Review of Education Capital by Sebastian James, published in April 2011, and the Government's response published in July 2011. It covered implications for the way the Department allocates funding and manages its capital programme.
The consultation was intended to promote wider understanding of the James Review proposals and highlight common concerns to inform implementation. The aim was to ensure that the Department's capital investment achieves maximum efficiency, whilst taking account of the needs of the end user e.g. schools, local authorities and other providers of education and services to children and young people.
The consultation closed on 11 October 2011.
Supporting papers
To download the consultation document, please follow the link below.
CIBSE response
CIBSE believes that using data on the condition of the local estate as the basis for allocation of funding is very risky as most often condition surveys in Local Authorities are outdated and in many cases too generic and implicit. What is needed is a standard set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that could be a combination of condition data and standard comparisons to national energy and health & safety benchmarks. This would allow all schools to be compared on a standard baseline identifying the worst schools. The key indicators should relate to the ability of the school building to provide a suitable learning and working environment. The internal environment should meet appropriate standards of thermal comfort in winter and summer, indoor air quality, acoustic and daylight. It should do so at a reasonable impact on the environment through energy use and carbon emissions.
In practical terms the KPI should be based on issues such as structure, life cycle of the building, asbestos survey, M&E survey and building performance relating to energy use and indoor environmental quality indicators as a minimum.
Revising Regulations and reducing bureaucratic burden should proceed with care. Some Regulations are in place for good reasons and should be retained, or even in some cases strengthened. Clarity of regulatory requirements could be improved. This would be a reasonable approach to defining ‘fit-for-purpose’.
On the whole the sector understands the need for the Regulations to change and wishes to sea level playing field. The biggest burden occurs immediately before and after regulatory change. The challenge is to ensure that the change delivers improvement.
To read the full CIBSE response, please follow the link below.