2 Managing the defence estate
13. The defence estate covers 1.5% of the UK.[33]
It includes 370,000 hectares across 4,000 sites, while the Department
also manages a further 200,000 hectares overseas.[34]
This estate, valued at over £20 billion, exists to support
operations and defence capabilities across the Royal Navy, Army
and Royal Air Force.[35]
14. The Department was unable to say whether an estate
that covers 1.5% of the UK is too large, too small or the right
size.[36] It has few,
if any, metrics to determine what an estate of the right size
should look like.[37]
We noted that, while the built estate has reduced by 4.3% over
the last ten years, personnel numbers have reduced by 13.4% -
three times more - over the same period.[38]
15. The Department has developed a Defence Estates
Development Plan, which was published for the first time in 2008.[39]
This plan lists the Department's 571 main sites and how long it
plans to keep them for, but it lacks measures or quantifiable
targets regarding the cost and size of the estate.[40]
Nor does it have information on key measures including condition,
operational importance, running costs, value and utilisation.
[41]
16. Without this essential information, Defence Estates
is not in a position to challenge the armed forces about the need
to retain sites or balance the cost of the estate against operational
need. Currently, the questions asked to determine whether a site
can be disposed of concentrate on whether it has defined use or
not - which most sites do. The Department does not ask how heavily
the sites are used, how much they cost to run or how much they
would be worth if sold.[42]
It is therefore unsurprising that little progress has been made
on reducing the size of the estate; the RAF, for instance, has
only reduced its airfields by 800 hectares (3%) over the last
ten years.[43]
17. In part, the reason for the absence of any performance
measures or quantified targets is that the Department lacks centrally
collected data to assess them.[44]
For example, on utilisation, there is no suite of measures to
assess the intensity with which airfields are used.[45]
Previous efforts to establish a data system have failed. The Department
initiated the Estates Performance Measurement System in 2005,
and began populating it with data in 2007.[46]
This system has since been abandoned, as the broad scope of the
database led to concerns over data consistency.[47]
18. We are astounded that five years of effort and
expense have apparently produced no tangible data we can examine
to assess how well the defence estate is being used.[48]
In our view, managing a £20 billion asset with virtually
no understanding of its cost or efficiency is entirely unacceptable.[49]
Figure 1: Essential data to manage the estate
Source: C&AG's report on the defence estate,
Figure 15
19. The Department is developing a new system to
record data on the estate, including costs and utilisation rates.[50]
However, the Department believes that it will take over a year
to populate the system with data and could not give a date by
which all the data needed to manage its estate would be available.[51]
We believe the Department should, within six months, collect sufficient
data to allow it to start managing its estate efficiently (such
as those outlined in Figure 1). This process would not require
a perfect system to be developed, nor should it involve placing
an undue burden on the Department.[52]
Once this data has been collected to an acceptable degree, it
could then be enhanced further to help the Department manage the
next generation of major estate contracts.[53]
We would also expect the Department to use improved central data
to reassess more rigorously its estate holdings and costs in line
with the findings of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
33 Q 108 Back
34
C&AG's report on the defence estate, para 1 Back
35
Qq 163-169; C&AG's report on the defence estate, para 2 Back
36
Qq 98-99 Back
37
Qq 93, 104 Back
38
Q 93; C&AG's report on the defence estate, para 1.16 Back
39
C&AG's report on the defence estate, para 6 Back
40
Q 126; C&AG's report on the defence estate, para 7 Back
41
Qq 100-101 Back
42
Qq 100-101 Back
43
Qq 110-114 Back
44
Qq 126-127, 130-138 Back
45
Qq 103-104 Back
46
Q 127; C&AG's report, Managing the defence estate: quality
and sustainability, HC (2006-2007) 154, para 2.16 Back
47
Q 127 Back
48
Q 129 Back
49
Q 163 Back
50
Q 130 Back
51
Qq 131-147 Back
52
Qq 134-136, 143-144, 163-165 Back
53
Qq 141, 144 Back
| 
