Memorandum submitted by CABE
Before we respond to the consultation we set out CABE's position and experience in relation to the Sure Start children's centres building programme and our relationship with DCSF.
1. CABE
was set up by the first Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in 1999
with the mission to promote high quality architecture and design within the
built environment in
2. CABE
is now jointly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and
the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The sponsorship
arrangements are with the DCMS. For five years from 2003 to 2008 the DCSF
funded a specific
3. CABE's enabling programme provides hands-on expert advice to public sector bodies that are procuring new buildings or masterplans, giving strategic advice on how to help get better value from their projects through better design. The advice covers issues such as project vision, client resources, briefing and competitive selection of design and developer teams.
4. Through
service level agreements with DCSF, CABE enabling support has been given to 17
local authorities in
5. The post-occupancy evaluation of over 100 children's centres, on which this response is largely based, took place in 2008, and this research was published under the title Sure Start Children's Centres: A post-occupancy evaluation.
Summary response to questions raised by the Children's, Schools and Families Committee's inquiry into Sure Start Children's Centres
This response is based on findings from CABE's Post-Occupancy Evaluation of 101 Sure Start Children's Centres. This research was conducted by CABE and commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). The study was completed two thirds of the way through the Sure Start programme. Post-occupancy evaluations are qualitative studies that concentrate on the buildings themselves rather than the quality or variety of service provision or the outcomes for users.
1. Funding and value for money
1.1. The basic funding of the children's' centres through the Sure Start capital grant has not been sufficient to provide for good quality community and ancillary spaces; a cost per square metre analysis was carried out, and those centres costing less than £1000 per square metre were given poorer ratings overall.
1.2. Because of funding being related to delivery timescales, meeting the timetable has taken such priority that sites have been selected on the basis of their already being in local authority ownership, rather than being the most suitable (i.e. accessible) or most co-effective for the proposed services.
1.3. It was discovered that funding timetables could not be harmonised to gain extra funding from central government departments (such as low carbon building programme 2), EU grants, or financing from different local authority departments, and thus extra funding is not being secured within the period.
1.4. CABE's recommendations
1.4.1. For improvements in the quality of all public buildings, CABE recommends that there needs to be a fundamental shift away from speed and cost being the main driving factors in decision-making. Future large-scale capital building programmes should put design quality and long-term viability at the heart of the agenda.
1.4.2 CABE recommends that local authorities use the OGC's common minimum standards are used as a basis for best practice in the procurement of all public buildings and also strive to go beyond them to put quality and long-term viability at the heart of the agenda.
2. Environmental sustainability
2.1. CABE found that sustainability in terms of environmental performance was not given a high score in most buildings. Design elements aimed at environmental sustainability were found to often focus on meeting what the regulations demand with no attempt to create better solutions. It seems that separate government funds available specifically for sustainability in public buildings have not been accessed[1].
2.2. The complexity of the delivery process has not allowed a harmonisation of timescales by the local authorities to acquire these funds. In some cases, sustainability measures both in terms of design and implementation by users were actually leading to wasted energy and/or uncomfortable environments. The EU requirement for energy performance certificates (EPCs) is only aimed at larger public buildings - those over 1,000 square metres, so children's centres have, for the most part, not been monitored for performance since the legislation has been introduced in October 2008.
2.3. As community hubs, it could be conceivable that children's centres could be net exporters and form part of a community-wide energy strategy, but this is not happening.
2.4 CABE's recommendations
2.4.1 Through the evaluation, it has become evident that best practice for procurement as described in the Office of Government Commerce's (OGC) common minimum standards, which covers environmental sustainability considerations in procurement, is not being adopted by local authorities. CABE is urging the government to make these standards mandatory, but they should become common practice within local authorities for the successful delivery of public building programmes now.
2.4.2 Rather than wait for mandatory environmental sustainability standards in public buildings, CABE recommends that local authorities should act now to be Green Leaders, be ahead of the game and: a) Ensure that an environmental sustainability policy is put in place for the local authority area that includes a high standard for all new public buildings b) Use whole-life costing analysis to ensure that facilities are both economic and sustainable c) Monitor energy usage of public buildings throughout their lives to ensure that energy-saving measures can be implemented and be seen as cost-effective d) Work with energy providers to discuss options for authority-wide strategies for all public buildings, including children's centres, potentially using public buildings as the basis for a community energy system.
3. Staffing, governance, management and strategic planning
3.2 It
was discovered in CABE's evaluation that in those centres that work well,
design quality appears to be contributing to staff
3.3 Generally however it was found that proper consultation with staff and other stakeholders, to determine how buildings could be configured to best suit users' needs and improve working practices, was lacking, again due to the timetable being too short, not allowing enough time for this vital consultation.
3.4 This lack of user involvement made difficult by the unrealistic two-year period from inception to completion on site, which is barely enough time for the larger centres to be built. It is also exacerbated by frequent changes in personnel within local authorities themselves due to changes in government departments and governmental policies.
3.5 CABE's recommendations
The government should:
3.5.1 Allow sufficient time for local authorities to purchase new sites and do feasibility studies of existing sites
3.5.2 Include time in the programme for the establishment of new teams requiring interdepartmental co-operation within local authorities: these will take time to start to work together efficiently on new programmes
3.5.3 Allocate specific time for stakeholder involvement as an integral part of the programme.
4. How well Children's Centres work with other partners and services, especially schools and health services
4.1 CABE found that it was difficult in many cases to create a robust brief for new centres that responded to all partners' needs, especially in cases where service provision from different local authority departments, or private providers, had not been finalised. The brief for a children's centre is very reliant on the formulation by the local authority of a comprehensive service plan. If a totally different service is provided than what was originally intended, the relation of the spaces to each other and their size and location may not be entirely appropriate.
4.2 Tight timetables do not allow sufficient time for interdepartmental co-operation within local authorities to form a comprehensive service plan in time to develop a comprehensive brief. This ultimately affects how well Children's Centres can work with other partners and services; if they cannot when necessary physically accommodate those services with which they are supposed to work, they cannot work as effectively with them.
1.3 CABE's recommendations
1.3.1 CABE recommends cross-departmental, multi-disciplinary agency teams to steer capital projects, especially where there is no existing partnership working establish a clear chain of communication between departments.
1.3.2 Time needs to be included in the programme for the establishment of these new teams, as time is always needed to start working efficiently together. Clear channels of communication between departments are also essential.
5. Whether services are being accessed by those most in need and how effective they are for the most vulnerable
5.1 The CABE evaluators made careful consideration of whether the centres were in locations that made them easily accessible for the people who needed them most. Poor ratings in transport or access brought the overall score down for some otherwise well-thought out centres, because it was clear that they were difficult for users to get to.
5.2 This again flags up the importance of the local authority choosing the right site. Robust feasibility studies that assess both service provision and the physical constraints of a site are a key consideration affecting the overall quality and usability of the building.
5.3 For those centres that were located next to existing primary schools, this was found to be a positive contribution to the government's agenda for extended schools and wraparound care through co-location of facilities.
5.4 CABE's recommendations
5.4.1 This study suggests that a children's centre will be more successful
and receive higher ratings where there has been active user participation in
the location and design and where the community has made decisions about it.
Time for user involvement is not included as part of the programme and the
two-year period is barely sufficient time in which to get the larger centres
built. See also recommendation 3.5.1
October 2009 [1] The low
carbon buildings programme 2 offers up to 15 per cent of the project value for
micro-generation for public buildings. It is offered by the Department for
Business, |