MINUTES of the meeting of theHERTFORDSHIRE PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP TOPIC GROUP held on Friday 26 February 2010 at 10.00am

ATTENDANCE

Members of the Topic Group

J R Barfoot, M Cowan (Vice-Chairman), T L F Douris, T C Heritage, A M R Searing (Chairman)

Other Members in attendance

F Button

Also in attendance

P Baker, Chairman of the Hertfordshire Association of Secondary School Headteachers

P Brown, Director, Mace

D Cook, Divisional Manager, Mouchel

J Donovan, Deputy Director (Chief Education Officer)

M Goddin, Contract Director, Mouchel

J Grubb, Chairman of the Primary Heads’ Forum

T Hawkyard, Head of Scrutiny

K Jennings, Head of Quality and Asset Management

E Lund, Democratic Services Officer

1. / MINUTES
1.1 / It was requested that it be noted that at the previous meeting a question had been asked regarding the percentage of projects which could be procured outside the consultantframeworks for the purposes of market testing, and that the response receivedhad been that the contract allowed for up to 10% by value. To date, only specialist projects had been procured outside of the frameworks.
1.2 / Subject to the above addition the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2010 were confirmed as a correct record.
2. / WITNESS EVIDENCE
2.1 / John Grubb, Headteacher, GroveRoadPrimary School and Chairman of the Primary Heads’ Forum
2.1.1 / The Group heard from John Grubb, Headteacher of Grove Road Primary School in Tring and Chairman of the Primary Heads’ Forum (PHF). The Group heard about the work of the Forum, its composition and membership, and its role in promoting and facilitating the link between schools and the authority. A paper outlining the issues which had been identified following consultation with members of the Forum was circulated; the Group heard that the following points had particularly been raised by the Forum:
  • Primary schools use property services differently to secondary schools
  • Poor communication is reported asa major issue: responsibilities of individuals are not clear, schools do not know whom to contact, and e-mails, calls, etc often go unanswered. There also seems to be a lack of understanding by the property partners as to how schools work
  • A single dedicated point of contact for schools, and the opportunity for regular briefing/training (to be offered on a rolling basis and involving both headteachers and site managers) on how to manage property issues and the role of the property partners would be beneficial
  • Communication between the property partners and other agencies (e.g. environmental health) seems poor
  • Progress on projects and issues is often very slow (e.g. three months to get a fence repaired)
  • Schools have reported a lack of support from Mouchel and Herts Property when problems occur with a project
  • Primary school headteachers and site managers are often only intermittently on site during the summer holidays – this can lead to hold-ups with projects, or things being done which haven’t been agreed
  • There are issues with schools not being able to sign-off projects on completion due to snagging issues which can take many months to resolve
  • There have been instances where certificates, manuals and other printed information have not been provided to schools on completion of works
  • There is a perception that schools could obtain better value for money if they managed projects themselves
  • A ‘Rolls Royce’ approach is not always necessary
  • There is a lack of clarity around the costs of projects: schools would like more transparent financial information
  • PHF and HASSH would recommend that schools could manage projects up to a higher level than present: £200,000 for primary schools and £500,000 for secondary schools.

2.1.2 / In debate Members queried the level of support/information available for schools should they wish to manage works themselves and it was noted that because schools pay up-front for the maintenance contract with Mouchel there is often a feeling that they are obligated to use Mouchel in order to obtainbest value from that for which they have already paid. In an example given of a delay in repairing a fence at a school the Group heard that the school could have independently commissioned a contractor to undertake the repair: a surveyor provided by Mouchel would examine the damage and provide a report to the school together with an estimate of likely costs, but this would not preclude the school using the report to get the work undertaken more cheaply or quickly by another contractor, although in the example given representatives of Mouchel agreed that an emergency patch repair should have been put in place pending the costing of permanent repairs. It was suggested that many primary school headteachers are risk averse and therefore more inclined to use Mouchel’s services rather than seek to get work done independently; they may also be unaware that they have the option to do so.
2.1.3 / It was also queried whether schools feel pressure to sign off projects as complete in order to be able to gain access to labs, IT suites, etc where works have been carried out, and the Group heard about the sign-off process when projects are completed. The difficulty in arranging for contractors to return and rectify ‘snagging’ issues was particularly noted and discussed. The Group heard about the limited options for retaining monies or incentivising contractors to return to fix snags, andit was noted that in order to comply with fair contract terms the amount withheld cannot exceed the value of the work outstanding. This means that contractors often do not have much of an incentive to come back and put faults right, particularly if they have already moved on to another project. In debate it was agreed that returning the monies retained from the contractor to schools in cases where snags are not put right would provide schools with an assurance that they would have the funds to get the issues sorted out themselves if necessary. It was felt that this approach would probably be welcomed by schools.
2.1.4 / In response to a Member question John Grubb agreed that there were instances where projects had gone very well, but that these are generally not reported to the Forum. He expressed the opinion that if the recommendations contained in the draft report are implemented it will resolve a number of the issues: the Deputy Director (Chief Education Officer) added that work is already underway to provide schools with comprehensive contact details for property issues.
2.2 / Peter Baker, Headteacher, MountGraceSchool and Chairman of the Hertfordshire Association of Secondary School Headteacher (HASSH)
2.2.1 / The Group heard from Peter Baker, Headteacher of Mount Grace School, Potters Bar and Chairman of the Hertfordshire Association of Secondary School Headteachers (HASSH). A paper outlining the issues which had been identified following consultation with members of the Association was circulated; the Group heard that the following points had particularly been raised by the Association:
  • Projects of less than £500,000 (£200,000 for primary schools) should be delegated to well-managed schools which can demonstrate the necessary capacity to take on such projects, as is already the case with Foundation, Trust and Voluntary-Aided secondary schools
  • Communication with schools could be improved: many school managers – even those with considerable experience – struggle to understand the workings of the Property Partnership and improving the support and training provided to schools (and those within the Property Partnership and CSF who work with schools) would be extremely useful
  • There seems to be a lack of awareness amongst officers and the Property Partnership of the implications of a school’s status and the different funding sources for Foundation, Voluntary-Aided and Trust schools
  • A single named officer point of contact with responsibility for a project from start to finish and responsibility for ensuring value for money on behalf of the school and the authority would improve processes from the schools’ point of view
  • Clearly-signposted policies and procedures for all projects, including costs, breakdown of responsibilitiesand timely responses to schools’ queries would enable schools and the partnership to better work together
  • There has been significant under-funding of the authority’s schools, and the poor condition of many schools has contributed to the current difficulties.

2.2.2 / In relation to the changing of specifications once a project has already started, the Group heard Peter Baker’s personal view that were he joining a school where a project had already commenced he would expect to be bound by the rules laid down by the project sponsor concerning whether any changes could be made at a given stage, and that he would expect, given the system approach, the specification for works to be of a ‘standard’ style. The Deputy Director (Chief Education Officer) expressed the view that incoming Headteachers should not be deterred from being able to input their own ideas and having the opportunity to make changes, but this needs to be dependent upon the stage of the works and the importance of any changes in relation to curriculum delivery. Keith Jennings informed the Group of the procedure for costing changes and the Group heard that changes for educational reasons need to be approved by CSF.
2.2.3 / The Group heard about the additional difficulties caused by old school stock and the increased costs associated with the day-to-day running of older buildings. In the case of Mount Grace School, lack of insulation and the age of the building mean that additional fan heaters had had to be used during the recent cold weather to maintain the school at a workable temperature: the additional load on the electrics had led to a blown fuse which had necessitated the closure of the school for half a day. The school is now having to upgrade the electrics at significant cost.
2.2.4 / In response to a Member question the Group heard that there is a perception amongst the HASSH membership that the partnership does not offer schools value for money.
3. / CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 / The Group considered its draft final report. The Head of Scrutiny advised that formatting changes had been made to the draft previously circulated to Members in order to separate the recommendations according to each of the property partners, but that actual wording changes to the previous draft were minimal. He also updated the Group on proposed changes to the report arising from the evidence received earlier in the meeting.
3.2 / Members identified a number of further changes which the Head of Scrutiny undertook to make to the report. A further draft will be circulated to Members once these have been made, together with a deadline for further responses, prior to the publication of the final report. / Head of Scrutiny

Emma Lund

Topic Group Administrator

1

100226 Minutes