Maintenance Of The Defence Estate

"The object of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the management of maintenance of the Defence estate, taking particular account of planning and delivery aspects." -- p. 13.

This report looks at the management by the Defence Estates Agency, of the land and property owned by the Ministry of Defence. The estate is worth some £15.3 billion, and costs £1.3 billion to run, with the MoD as one of the largest landowners in the UK with land covering some 240,000 hectares. The Estate itself consists of such facilities as barracks, depots, aircraft hangers and naval bases, as well as training grounds and ranges. Also the MoD has direct managerial responsibility for 200 sites of special scientific interest, along with responsibility for over 1600 listed buildings and monuments. The NAO recognizes the operational challenges of managing such a large utility, but commends the MoD for developing a strategy that saw contractual arrangements deliver higher quality and estate rationalization, along with improved customer satisfaction. There had been a deterioration in the estate due to shortfalls in spending, and the use of traditional methods in the procuring and managing of estate services. The selling off of surplus land has earned the MoD £1.2 billion, and five new regional contracts have been signed to improve the estate. Insufficient funding due to conflicting defence priorities may hamper long-term efficiencies, and that there is more to be done to consolidate recent cultural changes in the organization of contracts for running the estate, especially the move towards large centrally-managed contracts.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is one of the largest landowners in the UK, with a total estate (including land and property) valued at around £18 billion. Defence Estates (an Agency of the MoD until April 2007 and now re-integrated as part of the MoD) has responsibility for managing the defence estate, with an annual budget of £1.15 billion. The Committee's report examines the work of Defence Estates, focusing on the standard of accommodation for Service personnel and their families. The report highlights concerns about sub-standard accommodation, particularly in relation to the operation of the regional prime contracts for single living accommodation and the maintenance of service families accommodation under the housing prime contract. It argues that the provision of good quality accommodation for Service personnel and their families, modern and efficient office accommodation, and a well-maintained training estate, play a vital role in contributing to the effectiveness of our Armed Forces, particularly important given the current high tempo of operations. Overall, the report finds that although Defence Estates is doing much good work, there are considerable challenges ahead. A substantial increase in investment in the defence estate is required and the MoD must resist the temptation to take from the estates budget when the defence budget is stretched.

The Defence Estate comprises the land, buildings and other facilities that Defence uses across Australia. These facilities are vital to achieving the Defence mission - to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia and its interests. The Estate has a gross replacement value of $14.8 billion. Defence Estate Organisation's (DEO's) Facilities Operations (FACOPS) Program delivers general maintenance and minor new works to Defence facilities on a regional basis across the country. DEO's Estate Operations and Planning Branch and its nine Regional Estate Centres are responsible for the FACOPS Program. Resources available for the Program have been reduced in recent years. The total DEO budget for 2000-01, which includes funds for capital works, facilities operations and property management, is $2.6 billion. Of this total, the FACOPS Program has a cash allocation of $213 million and an additional $15.6 million for employee expenses associated with the Program's 283 staff. The objective of the audit was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of selected Defence facilities operations, including tendering and contracting, with a view to adding value with practical recommendations for enhancing operations.

This text sets out the long-term aims for the management of the land and property assets of the Defence Estate which owns or leases some 24,000 hectares of land, spread over 4000 sites. It also owns or uses over 45,000 buildings in the UK. The document explains what the estate is, why it is required, how it is used and how the Defence Estates intend to improve its management and upkeep. Its sets out policies for the management of the rural estate, including objectives for: nature conservation; cultural heritage; landscape; relationships with the public in respect of access and recreation, with local communities, and with agricultural and other tenants; and the use of private land for training.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has an extensive and complex estate of some 24,000 hectares, and after the Forestry Commission, is the second largest landowner in the UK. The estate is valued at over £18 billion and costs some £3.3 billion to operate. The estate is seen as essential to the delivery of military capability and the welfare and morale of Service personnel. This report, from the Committee of Public Accounts, has taken evidence from the MoD on the standard of living accommodation, the Department's ability to prioritise estate projects effectively, and its response to staff shortages. It follows on from an NAO report (HCP 154, session 2006-7), Managing the Defence Estate: Quality and Sustainability (ISBN 9780102944679). It sets out 9 recommendations, including: more than half of single living accommodation and over 40% of family accommodation does not meet the Department's definition of high-quality accommodation and is therefore substandard; that poor accommodation has a negative impact on retention rates; there is no information on when poor accommodation is to be upgraded, with some military personnel and their families having to continue to live in substandard housing for the next 20 years; there are gaps in the Department's understanding of estate costs; the Department employs only 56% of safety works staff and 57% of quantity surveyors that it needs; that implementing energy saving measures at its' defence sites would bring environmental benefits and savings of more than £2 million annually.

The Ministry of Defence, one of the largest landowners in the UK, has strengthened its estate planning and achieved significant receipts from disposal of property but the changes are not yet sufficient to drive value for money for the taxpayer rigorously. While the defence estate primarily exists to support defence capabilities, the Department has not matched its focus on operational needs with enough attention to efficient use of its estate assets and to reducing costs. This report acknowledges that, between 1998 and 2008, the MOD identified and took opportunities to rationalise that part of its UK estate not needed for training, generating £3.4 billion from the sale of surplus property. Nevertheless, over the same period the Department reduced the number of civilian and military personnel three times faster than it reduced its built estate. This raises a clear question about whether there are opportunities to reduce the estate further and secure cost savings and further disposal receipts. The NAO also concludes that the Department's process for categorising sites is rightly driven by operational requirements but it does not give sufficient weight to other factors such as how heavily a site is used, running costs, or potential income from sale. The MOD also lacks sufficient data centrally to conduct the necessary analysis to help it reduce costs in a structured way. This report identified five categories of information needed to identify the scope for further estate rationalisation: operational importance; utilisation; condition; potential value; and running costs.

This bestselling book has been fully revised and updated to include valuable new case studies and examples which help to demonstrate the common problems found in older buildings. It features many additional photographs illustrating the decay mechanims and individual issues associated with damp, timber decay, masonry defects, roofing problems and many other aspects. The book begins by summarizing the basics of surveying practice, including the inspection, assessment, defect diagnosis and monitoring of defects. It then examines the building elements, discussing their construction, typical faults and their diagnoses. This section provides specific advice on assessing industrial monuments and features concise inspection checklists for ease of reference. In the final section, the author looks to the future, considering the specific challenges faced by property professionals when employed to survey historic buildings. The book is accompanied by comprehensive appendices, including sample survey forms, and a list of useful contacts is followed by an extensive bibliography. This book will be of particular interest to conservation officers, surveyors, architects, archaeologists and planners.