(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) / ITEM NO. 4
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND LEISURE
TO THE LIFELONG LEARNING AND LEISURE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
ON 8 OCTOBER 2003
TITLE: Education’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Capital Strategy
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(i) That members note the contents of this report and the presentation information that will be provided on the day, on the aspects of the plan as they relate to current and projected achievement of targets and strategy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
(i) The Asset Management Plan (AMP) process will help to improve the quality of capital management and ensure targeting of resources to where they can have the greatest effect in raising standards and maximising value for money.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
The LEA’s School Organisation Plan 2002/2007
The LEA’s Asset Management Plan Local Policy Statement 2003/2004
The Corporate Capital Strategy 2004/2005 and Asset Management Plan 2003/2004
ASSESSMENT OF RISK:
The priorities identified in the AMP cannot be addressed in the short term without the capital investment provided by the DfES.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDING IS: Capital grants and borrowing approvals via the DfES.
LEGAL ADVICE OBTAINED:
From Corporate Services for those proposals which involve the statutory process, i.e. School Organisation Committee/Office of the Schools Adjudicator.
FINANCIAL ADVICE OBTAINED: Advice has been sought from the City Treasurer.
CONTACT OFFICER: Judy Edmonds, Assistant Director (Capital and School Organisation), Tel: 0161 778 0134
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATES: ALL
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES The LEA’s Asset Management Plan / Local Policy Statement 2003/2004
DETAILS (Continued Overleaf)
Details
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP)
1.1. Recent policy developments are making significant additional capital funding available for schools. The Asset Management Team aims to ensure effective and efficient use of these resources by developing the Asset Management Plan (AMP).
1.2. The Asset Management Plan (AMP) will gather and set out the information needed, and the criteria used to inform decisions about the spending on school premises helping to:
· Raise educational standards through Capital improvements, maintenance and better use of school premises. AMP’s are part of the agenda of reform and modernisation of the country’s schools, leading towards creation of focal points for the whole community,
· To develop plans for the efficient procurement, management and improvement of capital assets, and
· Create a transparent and open management strategy to target resources where they are needed most. This can only be done successfully when the full picture is understood. AMP’s for education will be the tool to view and interrogate this bigger picture.
1.3. Authorities have the overall responsibility for preparing Asset Management Plans which they should develop through partnership with Headteachers, Governors and the Dioceses. It is essential that the respective parties understand their roles and responsibilities in order to make this partnership work.
1.4. The AMP will link with, inform and be advised by the major plans of the LEA and Council including the Education Development Plan (EDP), School Organisation Plan (SOP), School Improvement Plans (SIP), the Corporate AMP and also the City Council’s broader planned programmes for regeneration and community development. All these plans will affect the three elements of the school’s AMP equally and will provide the opportunity for more ‘joined-up’ capital funding. The DfES allocates capital funding for up to 3 years, which offers greater funding certainty and therefore a better basis for longer term capital planning.
1.5. Locally, Salford’s two key priorities are the significant reduction of the backlog of work identified within the AMP and implementation of proposals resulting from the removal of surplus places, which should at the same time have an impact on raising educational attainment.
2. AMP ELEMENTS AND TARGETS
A short presentation on all elements of the AMP will take place at the Lifelong Learning and Leisure Scrutiny Committee, including details of the targets we have set ourselves.
2.1. ELEMENTS
2.1.1. AMPs classify investment needs in school buildings in terms of condition, suitability and sufficiency as follows:
· Condition – establishing the condition of all school premises is necessary to enable repair and maintenance works to be costed, prioritised and planned, to inform strategic decisions for the repair, replacement or improvement of premises.
· Suitability – this defines how well premises meet the needs of pupils, teachers and other users and contribute towards raising standards of education.
· Sufficiency – this element of Asset Management Planning examines the spatial needs and requirements of schools. It focuses on the overall total areas and on the quantity and organisation of places within and across schools in an Authority in relation to demand.
2.2. TARGETS
2.2.1. Condition
· Category 1.3 Condition Backlog per Pupil for the year 2000/2001 was £1,926.
· The current per Pupil Backlog has been reduced to £1,293.
· The target of reducing this further over the next 3 years has been set at approximately £845 per pupil.
This is subject to receiving the same level of funding from the DfES.
2.2.2. Suitability
AMP Data Submitted to DfES / Number of Schools / DIRECT IMPACTS ON EDUCATION / TOTALA / B / C / D
2000 / 104 / 84 / 686 / 748 / 1039 / 2557
2003 / 103 / 15 / 503 / 530 / 537 / 1585
69 / 183 / 218 / 502 / 972
· There has been a 38% reduction of Direct Impacts on Education between 2000 and 2003.
AMP Data Submitted to DfES / Number of Schools / HEALTH AND SAFETY / SECURITY IMPACTS / TOTALA / B / C
2000 / 104 / 247 / 597 / 530 / 1374
2003 / 103 / 205 / 455 / 264 / 924
42 / 142 / 266 / 450
· There has been a 32% reduction of Health and Safety / Security Impacts between 2000 and 2003.
· A realistic target, assuming that the levels of funding remain the same, would be to reduce Direct Impacts on Education and Health and Safety / Security impacts by 15% every year. This percentage will increase in those years where new school buildings are planned.
2.2.3. Sufficiency
Sufficiency consists of 4 target elements as indicated below:
· Net Capacity – the number of pupil places available compared to current and future numbers on roll. This enables us to undertake surplus place comparison. Targets have been set to reduce surplus places overall in the City to a level of 8%. The current levels are 11% in the Secondary Schools and 14% in Primary Schools overall.
Other 3 Target Areas – cover the overall areas of buildings and grounds in support of the places available and the current numbers on roll.
· Gross Area of Buildings – this identifies where buildings are too large or too small and helps underpin our local priorities with regard to surplus places and net capacity assessment. Targets have been set to address this.
· Team Game Playing Field – this measure helps us address any shortfall or excess of the statutory provision for team games. Our current targets are to examine those 5 schools who have greater than 70% shortfall in team game provision. This links with the Corporate AMP, to identify and acquire suitable land for team game provision.
· Total Site Area – this measure helps us address any shortfall or excess of the Building Bulletin 1982 recommended guidelines for total site area. Our current targets are to examine those 5 schools who have greater than 80% more site area than required. There may be potential at these 5 schools to develop more efficient and effective use of grounds to either accommodate increased social / community activity or to offset land to increase any shortfall at other schools.
3. CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN RELATION TO THE EDUCATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1. The DfES expect LEAs and their schools to first and foremost direct capital funds to address Asset Management Plan (AMP) priorities. Salford’s priorities, as detailed in the “Asset Management Plan 2003/2004 - Local Policy Statement”, are the reduction of the maintenance back-log identified in schools individual AMPs, and the removal of surplus school places.
3.2. The basic principles underlying capital investment are that the LEA will work with schools in developing school plans for the maintenance of their premises to ensure that delegated and devolved funds are used in an appropriate way.
3.3. The LEA actively encourages its schools to consider large scale capital schemes that will secure ‘Best Value’ through lower lifetime costs, thus avoiding the ‘patch and mend’ policies of the past.
3.4. An example of this relates to a recent project which involved the use of Devolved Formula Capital, Modernisation Funds and Seed Challenge Capital. This addressed both suitability and condition issues and will result in lower energy costs, thus providing savings in the school’s revenue budget.
3.5. Historically, the level of expenditure on each priority has largely been determined by the funding sources. However, now Salford has achieved a satisfactory assessment from the DfES of its Asset Management Plan (AMP), the Local Authority has greater scope in bringing together various funding sources to target resources in the most effective manner. Announcement of indicative DfES allocations for a 3-year period assist the LEA in developing a strategic approach to the joining up of funding sources to achieve best value. However, it is expected that in Salford it will take a large number of years to diminish the backlog of condition and related suitability issues.
3.6. It is envisaged that the LEA will therefore need to bid for extra funds via the traditional routes of Targeted Capital and PFI.
3.7. Details of the various funding streams are as follows:
3.7.1. Formula Capital Allocations
· Schools Devolved Formula Capital
· LEA Co-ordinated Capital Voluntary Aided Programme (LCVAP)
· NDS Condition Funding
· NDS Modernisation Fund
· Seed Challenge Capital Grant
· Schools Access Initiative
3.7.2. The above named capital funding is allocated to LEAs and/or schools annually via DfES formulaic calculations. The formulas used tend to be a mix of lump sums and per pupil elements, with additional weightings given to NDS Condition and Modernisation funds based on assessments of LEAs AMPs.
3.8. Major Competitive Bidding Rounds
· Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
· Targeted Capital Fund (TCF)
· Basic Need (BN)
3.8.1. The above named competitive bidding rounds can have financial thresholds, a minimum rate of return on capital investment and strict criteria. LEAs are only allowed to submit bids at certain times of the year, and the deadline date is one of several strict criteria that must be met if the capital bid is to stand any chance of success. It is for the LEA to determine the projects to be submitted using the priorities identified in our AMP - Local Policy Statement.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. AMPs are dynamic in nature; over time the process of prioritisation work and creating strategies for the efficient and effective use of assets will be developed through a robust benchmarking system. Stakeholder participation and needs will always form a core foundation of priority decisions. This transparency will continually encourage ownership and participation from stakeholders.
Page 5 of 5