HOUSING
Property’s solution to40% demand W
hatever the politics and psychology behind the
Treasury’s demand, most government departments are now having to draw up plans for 40% budget cuts.
A search for painless cuts at that level will be fruitless but departments must still be hoping to protect frontline services, especially those that are most valued by the voting public.
Does the public property estate hold an answer? Can we lessen the pain by relocating, selling the most valuable property assets, changing working practices or using less space? November’s Public Property Summit in London will be looking at work to date in the public sector – by the Shareholder Executive, the Office of Government Commerce, the Total Place programme and by departments – and at the solutions on offer from the private sector.
“Public bodies have to seriously consider the options available to them for reducing the overall size – and cost – of the civil estate,” says James Grierson, head of public sector at global real estate adviser DTZ.
“It could halve the space it occupies. Options include collaboration between bodies, reducing the amount of space per head from the current 10 square metre target, outsourcing certain services to providers based at alternative locations, the seemingly inevitable headcount reduction and implementing flexible working programmes.”
Capita Symonds’ Neil McLocklin stresses the potential savings:
Jul/Aug 10
“The central government estate is the second largest cost to government after people. The ‘computer said’ approach to strategy can easily identify the savings contribution.
“Reducing average occupancy down to 10.5sqm will save approximately £1 billion per annum and raise several billion through asset disposals. Relocation to cheaper and better quality accommodation, in places like East London, can be used as a catalyst to achieve the wider transformational aspirations of the coalition government.
“But computers do not deliver strategies. The issue is how to make it happen. To achieve these savings will require transformational capability of an unprecedented scale, focused upon people and behaviour, rather than desk utilisation studies and furniture solutions.”
Joint venture Helical Governetz is creating five ‘government hubs’, all in partnership with
public sector authorities and on public sector or former nationalised land. These are campuses where civil service, local government, wider public sector bodies and private sector servicing organisations can cluster in efficient buildings and share facilities, accommodation and services. Current schemes are in Staffordshire, South Wales, Wiltshire, Lancashire and South Yorkshire and an East London hub is under discussion. Upfront costs of relocation, redundancy, fit out, moving and IT are part of the package.
Director Simon Sokel reports strong interest in the hubs. “There is a great understanding of the need for sustainability, which has the effect of significantly bringing down the annual running costs of these buildings. Compare that with the older, inferior and unusable space that government so very often occupies.”
Richard Heap of
publicpropertyuk.com says: “There are savings that can be
made by using public sector properties more efficiently, improving collaboration between public bodies, and selling properties that aren’t needed. Private sector firms will find their fees squeezed too. Property can play its part, but making savings from property can be slow. It can take years to wait for a lease to end, for example.”
The departments of health and international development might have ring fenced budgets but even they will be expected to make efficiencies and use the solutions available to them. Most of those solutions will be on the table at the Public Property Summit, which is at the Business Design Centre in London from 1-2 November.
Early conference delegate bookings through 01462 490609 or publicpropertysummit. com will receive a discount. Exhibition-only visitors can attend for free but are still encouraged to register in advance.
pse 45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68