Edinburgh Napier Staff Intranet - Edinburgh Napier University

7 downloads 432 Views 220KB Size Report
summary of the Edinburgh Napier University “Estate Strategy 2006 – 2016”. The “Estate Strategy 2006 .... reducin
EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY

ESTATE STRATEGY – 2006-2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTENTS Section

Page

Contents

2

Overview

3

Introduction

4

Main Objectives

6

The Existing Estate

8

Assessment Criteria

11

Strategic Options & Options Appraisal

14

The Preferred Option

18

2

Overview The purpose of this document is to provide the reader with an executive summary of the Edinburgh Napier University “Estate Strategy 2006 – 2016”. The “Estate Strategy 2006 – 2016” is deemed to be commercially confidential, as its general release would prejudice the commercial interests of the University under [s.33 (1) (b) FOI(S)A 2002]. The Executive Summary aims to cover the main points contained within the wider document. This includes a summary of the aims and objectives of the University, a summary of the University‟s Strategic Plan, detail on the existing estate, detail on how the wider document was compiled in terms of process, background on the decision making process, the options considered and the preferred option. The University‟s Accounts are a matter of public record and the latest annual accounts available can be viewed via the following link http://staff.napier.ac.uk/Services/Finance/Annual+Accounts/. The reader should assume that the financial impact of all options evaluated was fully considered by the University and the Scottish Funding Council, and that the implementation of the preferred option was deemed to be affordable. Funding for implementation will be through existing resources and borrowings. Any further questions in relation to the University‟s Estate Strategy 2006-2016 which fall under the Freedom of Information Act should be forwarded in writing via the following link: www.napier.ac.uk\foi.

3

INTRODUCTION 1. The Estate Strategy 2006-2016 has been prepared as part of the University‟s long-term strategic planning process and addresses the facilities needs associated with delivery of the Academic Strategy contained within the University‟s Strategic Plan. It has been developed following a review of the previous Estates Strategy 1999-2009 which was conducted during 2004-2006. 2. The process for producing and gaining approval of the Estate Strategy 2006-2016 was one of extensive consultation with internal and external parties. This process was initiated by the Estate Strategy Working Group (ESWG) formed in the autumn of 2004, whose constituency was mainly from within the University, but complimented by a senior staff member from Standard Life, as well as external consultants. The Estates Committee and Corporate Management Team (CMT) were kept informed of progress through reports by the Director of Facilities Services at scheduled meetings. The Director provided the members of the Estates Committee with progress reports / presentations at six meetings held between April 2005 and June 2006. CMT received a progress report by the Director of Facilities Services at meetings held on 6 April 2005, 22 August 2005 and 24 May 2006. CMT were also kept regularly apprised on progress through updates by the University Secretary and the Principal. The Director of Facilities Services also met regularly with the Principal, University Secretary, Deans, Heads of Schools, Faculty Managers etc., as well as attending a broad range of committee meetings throughout the project term. 3. A joint CMT – ESWG workshop was held on 8 March 2005 for the purpose of agreeing assessment criteria and weightings that were considered when selecting a preferred option. This assessment criteria was reviewed further as a result of a joint Court – CMT event held on 17 February 2006. 4. A CMT/Heads presentation was made by the University Secretary in November 2005. It was agreed following this presentation that additional consideration should be given to the retention and use of Sighthill in the long term, and modeling this as a possible future location for the Faculty of Health, Life & Social Sciences. A phase II project plan was developed and a feasibility study was commissioned. 5. The Principal formed the Estates Strategy Executive Group (ESEG) in January 2006 so that the work undertaken to date and the feasibility study findings could be fully considered at a senior level. This group would also ensure that all of the broad corporate and strategic issues are fully considered and aligned. The membership of the ESEG comprised the Principal, Vice Principal (Academic Quality & Customer Service), Vice Principal (Research, Commercialisation & Knowledge Transfer), University Secretary, Director of Finance, Deputy Director of Finance & Investment

4

Appraisal, Director of Facilities Services, Project Director (Facilities Services) and the Policy Advisor. The ESEG held 5 meetings leading to the presentation of a preferred option to Estates Committee at their meeting held in June 2006.

5

Main Objectives 6. The objectives of the Estate Strategy 2006-2016 are: (i)

to define clearly the current estate in quantitative and qualitative terms;

(ii) to identify the University‟s space and capital requirements now and for the coming decade; (iii) to provide a framework for action and for development in the longer term in light of the University‟s planning priorities; (iv) to inform management and the decision making process within the University; (v) to produce a document which will be of interest others, but in particular the Scottish Funding Council; (vi) to provide a suitable basis to inform decision making on future capital development; (vii) to develop a longer-term view of physical and capital requirements in support of the University‟s strategic objectives through the Estate Strategy‟s integration into the overall corporate strategy. 7. It can be said that a headline objective emerged from the work of the ESEG, which was the overarching aim (as a minimum) to have each Faculty based at one main University location, in view of the significant amount of inter campus travel undertaken by both students and staff on a regular basis. 8. The objectives relating to the Estate Strategy detailed above were informed by the University‟s Corporate Strategy. “Creating the FutureNapier Toward 2010”, was published in 2004, the highlights of which appear below: (i)

the University‟s existing core provision of teaching full-time home undergraduates will remain central to its vision and it will seek to enhance the quality of this provision and to improve our progression and achievement rates;

(ii)

the University will be more pro-active in growing areas that build on existing strengths, which respond to guidance from Ministers and the Scottish political environment where this is consistent with our vision;

6

9.

(iii)

the University will seek to build upon its experience in attracting international students and to significantly develop its international activities;

(iv)

the University will plan to grow postgraduate and continuing professional development (CPD) provision, recognizing the increasing demand and importance to the economy;

(v)

the University will continue to build on its success of improving access to higher education, particularly through our collaborative agreements with further education colleges;

(vi)

the University‟s plans are underpinned by a commitment to high quality and ensuring that its internal processes and systems are appropriate to support both growth and high quality;

(vii)

the University will aim to build its research base such that the total of RAE-based grants will double, while working to increase its activities in the areas of consultancy, commercial research and knowledge transfer;

(viii)

a strongly customer-focused approach will be at the core of all the University‟s operations.

The University has the overarching objective of being widely regarded as “The Best Modern University in Scotland by 2010”. The implementation of the preferred option will aid in accomplishing this objective, in part, by:     

creating new fit for purpose accommodation; reducing bad fit space that exists across the estate; consolidating teaching activity across three main locationsSighthill, Merchiston and Craiglockhart create partnership opportunities with external parties, such as Stevenson College and the NHS; lead in the regeneration of Sighthill and ensure that we are a part of the communities that we are serving.

7

The Existing Estate 10.

The current estate (March 2006) is set out in detail in the chart below . There are four “primary sites” in Edinburgh, namely, Craighouse, Craiglockhart, Merchiston and Sighthill. There are other Edinburgh locations which are the focal point for certain activities and these can best be described as “secondary sites”, namely, Canaan Lane, Comely Bank, Morningside Church and Marchmont. In addition, there are also properties remote from Edinburgh, namely, Livingston and Melrose. The gross area of the buildings owned/occupied by the University (excluding student accommodation) is 82,187m2, as shown: TOTAL AREA BY CAMPUS- MARCH 2006

Sighthill 21%

Canaan Lane Comely Bank Blantyre Terrace 3% 3%

0%

Craighouse 16%

Morningside 1%

Craiglockhart 17% Livingston 2%

Merchiston 33%

Melrose 2%

Marchmont 2%

11.

Of the four primary locations, the Merchiston campus occupies the most advantageous location in terms of transport links and proximity to the City centre, and is the largest of the University‟s locations. The Craiglockhart campus, re-opened in 2004, is the most modern University campus and is well served by a direct bus link to Merchiston. Craiglockhart has proved extremely popular since re-opening, and is the home for the Edinburgh Napier University Business School. A brown field site sits behind the existing new campus building which suggests that there is scope for additional development in the future, should it be required.

12.

Student activity ceased at Sighthill in 2004 following the move of the Business School to Craiglockhart. Sighthill is a dated 1960‟s location in need of refurbishment and for this reason has proven unpopular. The Sighthill campus is well located in terms of its proximity to the City bypass, and it occupies a significant footprint for future development. The Craighouse campus is comprised almost exclusively of A listed buildings and as such it is inefficient and functionally unsuitable for the needs of a modern University. Teaching activity at this location is limited due to the restrictions that exist. An existing planning permission is in place for an additional 8,000m2 University building to the rear of New Craig.

8

13.

The University, together with all other UK HEIs, makes an annual return of Estates Management Statistics (EMS) in respect of the quantity, quality, operational cost and effectiveness of its total estate. Data is collected under a range of categories including non-residential, residential and total estate. The EMS return allows for year on year comparisons of performance by the University and for benchmarking across the sector as a whole or with individual or selected groups of institutions. EMS data was referred to widely when compiling the Estate Strategy 2006-2016 and reference is made throughout the document to elements of the University‟s EMS return which was made in January 2006. This return covers the period 2004/2005 as this was the most up to date information available at the time.

14.

The EMS data revealed that the University has a much older estate (pre 1940) in comparison to the sector (37% compared to 20%), has a higher percentage of listed buildings (18% compared to 8%) and a lower percentage of modern buildings (post 1980) in comparison to the sector (10% compared to 24%). Finally, the estates buildings were shown to be less efficient net to gross (71% compared to 77%). All of these measures serve to demonstrate that the University estate is in need of modernisation, with less older and listed buildings forming part of the mix.

15.

16.

The EMS return showed that the University also spends more on maintaining its estate, as shown in the table below: Napier Sector Median EMS return 2004/2005 2004/2005 Maintenance Costs psm GIA £28.70 £19.03 (reactive and planned) Reactive Maintenance % of Total 44% 40% Maintenance Legislative Compliance Spend % 35% 17% of Maintenance Costs Backlog maintenance was found to be significant, as shown within the Estate Strategy. Jones Lang LaSalle determined that the University‟s backlog maintenance obligations, as of July 2003, stood at approximately £9.5m. The table below reflects the £9.5m split between building condition and legislation backlog: Condition £’s

Outstanding Maintenance by Location Craighouse Marchmont Merchiston Sighthill Morningside Craiglockhart Blantyre Total

£1,606,000 £84,000 £1,950,000 £3,363,000 £103,000 £1,000,000 £10,000 £8,116,000 9

Legislation £’s £312,000 £56,000 £494,000 £519,000 £4,000 £4,000 £1,389,000

17.

The last of the EMS statistics highlighted in this summary relate to the University‟s position, when measured against a basket of other modern universities, for m2 per FTE student. The statistics reveal that Edinburgh Napier is below in the average area available per FTE student: m2/FTE Students (Modern Universities) Napier Coventry Glasgow Caledonian Oxford Brookes Teeside Totals Average

18.

Area m2 (ex residences)

Student FTEs

Ratio (Area/SFTEs)

82,187 119,935 86,795

11,388* 13,461 13,744

7.21 8.91 6.31

101,951 94,722 485,640 97,128

13,497 11,270 63,360 12,672

7.55 8.40 7.67

From the EMS statistics alone, one can conclude that the University should consider options that will help to achieve a more modern estate, help to create more fit for purpose student and staff facilities, consider opportunities that will allow for the backlog maintenance burden to be reduced, etc. The aspiration to achieve a one faculty-one campus solution has taken account of the EMS statistics and the findings arising from them.

10

Assessment Criteria 19.

The University considered a range of assessment criteria as part of the process to arrive at a preferred option. In the past, previous strategies have considered development options against a set of agreed criteria which the University has signed up to and, where appropriate, weighted to allow a quantitative assessment of each proposal. This method of assessment is clearly only one of many different considerations that was taken account of by the University when considering the most appropriate option(s) that should be recommended.

20.

When considering the assessment criteria for this Estate Strategy, appropriate guidance and best practice information applicable to the development of estate strategies was examined. The sources of guidance used to inform the formulation of appropriate criteria included publications by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The HEFCE Good Practice Guide to Estate Strategies (HEFCE 00/04) advocates an approach where both non-financial and financial criteria are identified. The key focus was to define achievable options which should be based upon quantifiable and realistic assumptions.

21.

HEFCE also publish a Guide to Good Practice in terms of Investment Decision Making (HEFCE03/17). This publication advocates an approach where projects should be measured against defined objectives and institution aims or goals. Projects must also be seen to support the Strategic Plan of the particular educational institution and should be considered on a costed basis in terms of the benefits, timing, risks and uncertainties associated with the delivery of any particular option. In addition, estate strategies were examined from other universities and from other large organisations, like the NHS.

22.

The assessment criteria adopted is as follows: Non-financial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Flexibility, fitness for purpose and future proofing. Environmental sustainability. Improvements to the quality of the estate. Impact in terms of co-location of facilities / departments. Impact in terms of the image and positioning of the University. Fit with strategic plan. Degree of risk and likelihood of delivery of a successful Estate Strategy.

11

Financial 8. 9. 10.

Affordability. Impact on the University‟s overall financial position – including opportunities for commercialisation. Cost / benefit assessment.

23.

The CMT/ESWG workshop on 8 March 2005 sought to encourage detailed consideration of these criteria by the participants, and for each participant to consider which of the criteria was the most important. The workshop split into three sub groups to discuss and debate the criteria, and to rank the criteria in terms of high, medium and low. The findings would later be considered by Court and CMT members at their away day in February 2006, and would assist in further defining which of the criteria should be seen as the most important when considering options.

24.

On this basis, the criteria which emerged as most important following the CMT / ESWG workshop on 8 March 2005 were as follows: High Flexibility, fitness for purpose and future proofing Fit with Strategic Plan Affordability Medium Impact in terms of co-location of facilities / departments Impact on the University‟s overall financial position – including opportunities for commercialisation Impact in terms of imaging and positioning of the University Low Cost benefit assessment Degree of risk and likelihood of delivery of a successful Estate Strategy Environmental Sustainability Improvements to the quality of the estate

25.

The criteria detailed above which emerged from the CMT / ESWG exercise were scored and then used as part of the work undertaken at the CMT / Court away day on 17 February 2006. These criteria were

12

reviewed and discussed in detail by the workshop participants, and further developed as a reduced set of criteria/priorities, as follows:

Better meeting the needs of our students Consolidating Health on a main University campus Improving the physical environment for Creative Industries Ensuring that the estate is more flexible and fit for purpose 26.

These criteria/priorities were then adopted by the ESEG as a basis for establishing a final shortlist of options for consideration, assessment of affordability, and fit with the Strategic Plan.

13

Strategic Options and Options Appraisal 27.

The University considered a long list of options that are summarized as follows: Option 1- Do Nothing The University would adopt a strategy whereby it would not invest in its core estate beyond the levels that currently take place. Funding for discrete changes to existing provision, mainly through re-design, would come from existing budgets, priority works funding and grant funding. Option 2- Lease Major New Facilities The University would seek to lease new facilities within a 1.5-mile radius of the Merchiston Campus. This leasing would supplement existing stock and would accommodate growth and co-location of activities. Option 3- Relocation The University would seek to relocate to a new site and accommodate all of its activities in one location. All existing University property would be disposed of. Option 4- Complete the 1999 Estate Strategy Development Programme Under option 4, the University would continue with the existing estate strategy which includes the development of the SCCI at Craighouse. Option 5A- Limited Development of the Existing Estate Under option 5A, the University would seek to undertake a limited programme of development of the Sighthill and Merchiston campuses and a full development of the remaining land at Craiglockhart. With this level of development, the University could then consider alternative uses, as well as targeted disposals over the period of the Estate Strategy, including Marchmont, Blantyre Terrace and Craighouse, together with the surrender of the license to occupy agreements associated with Canaan Lane & Comely Bank. Option 5B- Full Development of a New Campus at Sighthill and Limited Development at Merchiston Under option 5B, the University would undertake a re-development of the Sighthill Campus to include 8,400m2 of refurbishment and 13,833m2 of new build accommodation. A limited re-development of the Merchiston Campus would be undertaken, which would provide for

14

the creation of new social learning space. With this level of development, the University could then consider alternative uses, as well as targeted disposals over the period of the Estate Strategy, including Marchmont, Blantyre Terrace, Craighouse, Morningside Church and Merchiston Place, together with the surrender of the license to occupy agreements associated with Canaan Lane & Comely Bank. Option 6- Limited Development of the Existing Estate Under option 6, the University would re-develop the Learning Resource Centre at Craighouse for use by Music. Morningside Church would be re-developed for occupancy by Photography and Marchmont could be considered for an alternative use or disposal. Option 7- Development of the Existing Estate Under option 7, the University would re-develop the Learning Resource Centre at Craighouse for use by Music. Morningside Church would be re-developed for occupancy by Photography and Marchmont could be considered for an alternative use or disposal. A new build of approximately 6,000m2 would be undertaken at Craiglockhart specifically for the activities currently being accommodated at Canaan Lane and Comely Bank. The existing License to Occupy arrangements at Canaan Lane and Comely Bank would cease. Option 8- Full Development of the Existing Estate Including Craiglockhart and Merchiston Under option 8, the University would re-develop the Learning Resource Centre at Craighouse for use by Music. Morningside Church would be re-developed for occupancy by Photography and Marchmont could be considered for an alternative use or disposal. A new build of approximately 6,000m2 would be undertaken at Craiglockhart specifically for the activities currently being accommodated at Canaan Lane and Comely Bank. The existing License to Occupy arrangements at Canaan Lane and Comely Bank would cease. The Merchiston Master Plan would progress and up to approximately 7,300m2 of new accommodation would be created allowing the University to consider alternative use and/or disposal of Blantyre Terrace and Merchiston Place. 28.

The ESEG considered the work performed by the ESWG in addition to reviewing a detailed analysis of the current estate and possible options for reconfiguration. This review confirmed that it would be possible to consolidate teaching across three campuses, provided that a programme of development was undertaken.

29.

Each of the nine options presented above were reviewed in detail with the aim of agreeing a preferred option for presentation to the

15

University‟s Estates Committee and Court. Three options, namely 1, 6 & 7, were eliminated early due to their inability to achieve the aim of teaching across three campuses. The leasing of major new facilities (option 2) was eliminated for a number of reasons, but in particular cost and the availability of space that would be fit for purpose were key considerations. 30.

Option 3, complete re-location to a Greenfield site, was viewed as an attractive proposal however the high risk and cost associated with this option proved prohibitive.

31.

When detailed consideration was given to which of the three campus locations should be designated as teaching campuses, the ESEG agreed that both Merchiston and Craiglockhart, for a variety of reasons including, size, location, recent investment etc, should remain as teaching locations in the future. Detailed consideration was then given as to whether Sighthill or Craighouse should be designated as the third teaching campus location. Factors such as running costs, functional suitability, future flexibility, development potential (short and long-term) etc. were examined, and it was clearly apparent that Sighthill should be designated as the third campus location. This resulted in the elimination of option 4 from further consideration.

32.

Three options remained, namely 5A, 5B & 8. Option 8, while having emerged previously as the preferred option of the ESWG, raised concerns with the ESEG members. The extended implementation time for all phases (8 years or more from approval), the major disruption to activities, uncertainty over the level of planning permission that would be granted, future growth potential and the inability to give each faculty an identifiable home location were all factors in eliminating option 8 from further consideration.

33.

The remaining two options, 5A & 5B, were then the focus of considerable consideration by the ESEG. All participants were of the view that if a re-development were undertaken at Sighthill then the redevelopment should be an ambitious one. This view clearly supported option 5B over 5A. The ESEG members were also of the view that the retention of the residual site at Craiglockart would be desirable, so that maximum flexibility for the future could be retained. Again this supported option 5B over 5A.

34.

Affordability remained an issue throughout and through detailed analysis and planning the scope of the project was more clearly defined so that the University‟s cost consultants could profile the probable costs. These projected costs were then considered by Finance leading to the presentation of a detailed cash flow model. Once the affordability of a full development at Sighthill was confirmed, then option 5B emerged as the option which best fit the aims of the University‟s Academic Strategy.

16

35.

As a final validation, the nine options were scored using the same approach followed by the ESWG, but using the criteria/priorities identified by Court and CMT at their away day on 17 February 2006 Option 5B scored joint highest with a greenfield site relocation as a result of the exercise.

17

The Preferred Option 36.

Option 5B emerged as the preferred option of the ESEG due to its ability to best meet Edinburgh Napier‟s academic priorities, within the bounds of affordability, for the future. Meeting future academic priorities together with the future flexibility and adaptability of the estate is central to the strategy, as it will allow the University to best react to changes over time. The ability of option 5B to allow for the relocation of all activities for the Faculty of Health, Life & Social Sciences from Craighouse, Merchiston, Blantyre Terrace, Comely Bank & Canaan Lane distinguishes this option from all others. This option will also allow the University to consider a range of other options for the estate, including alternative uses and targeted disposals. The University would also have the opportunity to reduce the overall size of the estate which would result in savings by reducing operating costs such as cleaning and maintenance, and indirect costs, such as inter-campus travel. The ability of Edinburgh Napier to engage with other parties in joint collaborative initiatives will be enhanced significantly by the progression of option 5B. There is scope to work with the City of Edinburgh Council on sports and community facilities, the NHS in the creation of Clinical Skills training space and Stevenson College on teaching, library and sports provision. More specifically, it is impossible to escape the evidence that a new landscape in tertiary education is being created with the further education/higher education interface as a primary concern. The creation of the merged Scottish Funding Council is perhaps the most obvious indicator, and the importance of working closely with further education has never been more obvious. In a wider context, this option also offers an opportunity for the University to fulfil a broad part of its mission as an influential organisation in the city. As „Edinburgh‟s University‟, it has the capacity, and the responsibility, to lead social and economic regeneration and to establish itself firmly as part of a community which it endeavors to serve as an educational provider. The University‟s mission in respect of access and inclusivity could be no more clearly articulated and publicly demonstrated than through this option. All of the options in section 6 have been shared with CMT and Estates Committee and the preferred option was endorsed by the University‟s Court and acknowledged by the Scottish Funding Council.

18