Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-552)|
1 NOVEMBER 2006
Q540 Fiona Mactaggart: Could you
teach the clients to be better? Could you design a crash programme
for head teachers, for local authorities, which could say: "We
will put you through this in a day and, by the end of the day,
you would be a much better client than you were at the beginning.
We cannot teach you what you know about your schools, but we can
teach you to be a better client"?
Mr Terry: I would not think that
would be impossible. That is what National College is trying to
do at the present moment, although it is more than a day's process,
it is an extended process. I think educating the client to ask
the right kind of questions would be a crucial step up in making
a change in the process. If you have got a market and you have
got £45 billion, that should have a major impact on the way
in which the industry works, because you should be able to demand
those kinds of things, and if you have heads coming back and saying,
"Actually I understand X. Why can you not deliver me X?",
that might change the market place from that point of view. Certainly,
when you have something like the WRAP study which says you could
go for 30% recycled in some respects and then PfS go at 10%, that
seems to me a nonsense. We should be demanding: what can you achieve?
How can you push the envelope to make it a more sustainable structure
and utilise materials which can be recycled, create the markets.
This is one of the big issues in the construction industry. The
markets are not there for recycling. If we said, "You must
have 30% recycled", you would move the market.
Fiona Mactaggart: One of the things I
am struck by is the cost of all this. We are in a situation where
it costs something like £14.50 per metre square to build
a school building,
it costs about £2,000 per metre square to build a new office,
so we are doing this relatively cheaply. I can understand why
schools are to some degree cheaper than offices. Nevertheless,
how much more would it cost per square metre to get the kind of
environmental standards that you, Stewart, for example, are arguing
for? What would be the additional cost at present; and I want
Martin to answer whether or not he thinks that by setting them
we would actually drive down the costs and, if so, how fast? Do
you see what I mean?
Chairman: Do you want Stewart first?
Q541 Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, I wanted
Stewart to say what he thought the additional costs were, because
he is the person who is talking about the standards, and then
I want Martin to assess whether there is a speed of reduction
of costs if you actually set those standards.
Dr Davies: As I have got the opportunity
to speak first, let us talk about the kind of standards for, maybe,
a 60% reduction in the carbon footprint of a school. There is
not a full line of research on this area, but we think, ballpark,
somewhere in the region of 15%, 20% is what it would cost, butand
you talked about moving the marketif a programme as large
as BSF went consistently for that style of construction and level
of requirement, then you would have the traditional learning curve
in business that reduces costs, so I think there should be a good
opportunity, as the BSF programme went on, for that cost difference
to come down. The second point is that, of course, you get some
of that up-front cost back in lower operating costs, and it may
be that it is a 10-year payback, but in the life of the schools
programme you may well get your money back as you go along. The
third point I would make on cost is the opportunity for standardisation.
If, instead of doing things 500 different ways in 10 different
colours, you can actually reduce that to 50 ways in five colours,
you can get a cost reduction as well. There is an additional cost
upfront at the moment that is not factored into financial model
that dictates the allowed cost per square metre and we need to
change the financial model against which schools are being procured
to get fast enough progress in this area.
Mr Mayfield: I agree with what
Stewart has just said in terms of numbers. In terms of how to
do it, we need to move the datum from cost per square metre to
cost per pupil to allow greater innovation around how to deliver
the curriculum. The amount of money that councils get given by
the Government is based upon a standard which relates to area,
so if we can take that out of the picture and relate it to pupils,
you can then look at innovation, reduce the size of that school
or optimise the size of that school to deliver the curriculum.
I think that is one thing that needs to be done. There are also
tensions between the different standards. There are the acoustic
requirements that force up cost and there are other requirements
that push cost up. I think if some hierarchy could be placed upon
them, I am not saying throw the standards away, but relax them
and say that standard is more important than that standard or
another standard; so if you lifted up the agenda in that respect
and changed it from cost per square metre to cost per pupil, I
think you could see it happening relatively quickly. The first
opportunities to do that are on the schemes that have been procured
in the first wave. Where the schools are now being designed and
built, that is too late, but there are relationships built up
there between contractors, designers and councils that are going
to move forward with their second waves and their third waves
without going through the procurement loop. You could introduce
it into that process quicker but more effectively.
Q542 Fiona Mactaggart: What you are
saying is that actually there is an opportunity to negotiate in
existing relationships better solutions that might be rather clunky
if they are done in a bidding-type process?
Mr Mayfield: Yes, the problem
with bidding is that it is very quick, the datums are already
set, you have to give everybody clear standards so there is a
level playing field, and there is not the skill in enough of the
councils to be able to differentiate between somebody who is doing
it and somebody who is saying they are doing it, in black and
Q543 Chairman: We have to move on,
because we have another set of witnesses. I want to push you on
one thing, Martin. You seemed to suggest the private sector, but
who are the other two major clients? You said they are in the
top three. Who are the other two in the top three then?
Mr Mayfield: I think of it on
a sector basis, so commercial and healthcare would be the other
two major sectors.
Q544 Chairman: You say commercial,
in terms of sustainability, is moving faster?
Mr Mayfield: I would say it was.
Fiona Mactaggart: It is starting from
Q545 Chairman: Could you, another
time, show us some of that, or tell us where to see it?
Mr Mayfield: Yes.
Q546 Chairman: As someone who represents
a constituency near Leeds where the private sector has been allowed
to build with almost no civic leadership, we have got Legoland
which looks less sustainable than anything I have ever seen, whereas
in Manchester we find civic leadership with the demand of the
public sector, which drives high standards. You have pulled up
commercial to the public sector level. I do not see the private
sector leading in either design or sustainability.
Mr Mayfield: Some of the designs
on the table for commercial buildings in Leeds have moved on a
Q547 Chairman: So in Legoland there
is better sustainability?
Mr Mayfield: There is some commitment,
and that is partly driven through local development frameworks.
Leeds has a local planning framework which has demanded greater
levels which the developers responded to, and they have sold well
and let well and that has given developers the confidence to be
Q548 Chairman: Why does Manchester
not look so much better than Leeds then?
Mr Mayfield: That is a completely
Q549 Chairman: Thank you very much,
that has been very valuable. One last thing, to all four of you.
Should we have the kitemark or should we have a champion for sustainability
driving the Department, or linking the Department perhaps with
the Department for the Environment?
Mr Mayfield: I think just the
kitemark, because there is enough capability out there to deliver
it. We just need a clear standard.
Q550 Chairman: You like the kitemark.
Dr Davies: If it needs a champion
to get the thinking joined-up very urgently, then that might be
a good idea.
Q551 Chairman: What about you, Stan?
Mr Terry: I agree. If it is going
to get the agenda moving forward quicker, we want a champion but
we need a kitemark which says, "This is what is good."
Q552 Chairman: Alan?
Mr Yates: I think it is the champion
really, because setting the kitemark is the easy bit. I think
you need to sort out the priorities.
Chairman: Excellent. Thank you very much.
If you think of anything we should have asked you or anything
you should have told us, please get in touch with us. We would
like a relationship to make sure this inquiry report is good.
3 Note by Witness: (Alan Yates) I think it
is set at £1,080m2 not £14.50-set at 2003 so with inflation
this will have gone up. Back