Case study: Peter Symonds Sixth Form College
How Peter Symonds Sixth Form College built a new education block on the site of a disused block.
The college’s site is an open and attractive campus in Winchester. It is large for a sixth form college, with a high reputation for quality. 16 to 19 student numbers have consistently grown, having doubled since 2003, and increased by 447 between 2019 and 2021 alone.
Its total gross internal floor area (GIFA) before the project was 18,991 metres squared, which was 3,797 metres squared below the maximum recommended space under Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) space planning guidance, with a continuing rise in area demography predicted.
In light of this, the college proposed to build a new general purpose education block of 2 floors and 12 classrooms, with a total floor area of 1,105 metres squared and a calculated capacity of 672 new students. This required the demolition of an old block attached to a closed swimming pool.
The Peter Symonds Sixth Form College is a large sixth form college located in Hampshire, with 25 buildings on its main site and a separate adult and higher education (AHED) centre 1 mile from the main campus.
It has:
- 2 sites – site 1 where mainly A level provision is offered and site 2 for AHED provision
- an annual turnover of £29 million
- a financial health rating of ‘Outstanding’ since the 2018 to 2019 academic year
- 4,700 students
The gross internal area of the estate is 20,096 square metres.
The land of Peter Symonds College is held by Christes Hospital Trust for the provision of education by the college. Both the land and the buildings on it are vested in the trustees who hold it subject to the trust’s scheme, which is to provide a further education institution. Any buildings on the land cannot be used for any other purpose other than for the benefit of the college.
The college owns the AHED site which consists of only one building, with a gross internal area of 1,159 square metres.
The total annual running costs of the estate are £1.3 million per year.
The college employed an independent architect, appointed at tender, who also acted as project manager. They also employed an independent quantity surveyor (QS) and a number of consultants to assist with planning, safety, electrical and mechanical engineering.
Funding approval was granted in October 2021, planning was obtained by December 2021, building construction commenced beginning of March 2022 and occupation took place in January 2023. This represented a minor delay to the original programme of 4 months, due to the discovery of asbestos in the small building which required demolition, and also the need to decontaminate the site of a closed swimming pool. However, the construction timeline was relatively efficient and flexible due to the core design being modular.
The project was designed to achieve Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) Excellent environmental impact grading.
The classroom space specification was fairly standard with no requirement for specialist educational facilities. Together with the planned classroom capacity, which was deliberately targeted to be relatively high at 24, this was planned to give good flexibility to reconfigure for changing curriculum requirements in future.
Governance
Governors were fully involved in the project from grant application stage, with six separate information points designed into the approval and monitoring process.
The following list describes the actions undertaken by the project team and how these were integrated with governance throughout the project.
Stage 1
Select suitable consultants based on the outline brief and scope of duties. Governors approved the final shortlist of consultants for interviews.
Stage 2
Develop a brief and prepare a feasibility report, including design, programme and cost estimate for approval. Governors approved costs to proceed.
Stage 3
Develop, design and prepare tender documents, selecting a list of contractors. This enabled governors to approve the list of contractors invited to tender.
Stage 4
Evaluate tenders and award contracts subject to approval. Governors approved contractor appointments.
Stage 5
Construction activities commenced. The governors reviewed the progress reports.
Stage 6
Completion of works and agreement of final accounts. The governors were made aware of any issues.
Stage 7
Facilitate user occupation and resolve snagging issues. The governors supported the project by being made aware of any issues.
Stage 8
Post completion review of the project. Here the governors undertook a full organisational post project review.
A separate committee called the capital project working group was set up to oversee the project with clearly defined delegated authority and terms of reference.
Accommodation strategy
The planning process for the project formed part of a renewed estates masterplan.
The strategy considers the next 10 to 15 years of potential redevelopment and adaptation to the college and its environs in order to provide a cohesive vision for the way ahead. The content considers the existing sites and proposes a strategy for future development.
A separate feasibility study was undertaken for the project which included an investment appraisal.
Client requirements and project brief
The scheme brief was developed by the senior management team (SMT) in conjunction with the project manager architect, and oversight from the outset by the board of governors.
There were no separate legal advisers required for the project. Since the scheme required no special conditions of planning or contract, the college was able to rely on existing advisers for the minimal input required. The college’s insurance brokers were kept informed.
Scheme funding
The project budget was £4.5 million, funded 84% by grant and 16% from college reserves. The cost estimate was provided based on initial estimates provided by construction firms following a comprehensive tender specification exercise.
It was zero-rated for VAT, being for the provision of 16 to 19 education and housing only grant funded provision, with the exception of the potential for very small scale future evening provision.
Procurement strategy
The main construction contract was put out to full tender. Individual professional contracts, such as CDM and BREEAM consultant were awarded by the project manager in consultation with the Director of Finance.
Project management
The project was managed operationally by the college’s finance director and head of estates, working in conjunction with the project manager (architect) and SMT, and reporting into the governors’ Policy and Resources Committee.
Stakeholder management
Since the college site is in the middle of a residential area, a communication plan for engaging with neighbours was arranged early in the process. Neighbours were invited to a presentation regarding the project at pre-planning stage and were involved in the processing of application advice. Although the masterplan was not required by the council as part of the planning consent, the local council requested this. The college already had a master plan which was updated for the purposes of future strategy and communication with stakeholders.
The college held a separate meeting with the council’s planning and policy officers to discuss the masterplan and made changes in response to their feedback. The updated masterplan was again submitted to the council following full board approval.
As part of planning, the college also employed ecologists to monitor the project site for potential impact on habitat. No significant impacts from the project were reported.
Planning approvals
Planning approval had already previously been granted for a similar project which was not taken forward, so was straightforward to obtain within the timescale of 4 months set out in the project timeline.
Contract award
The contract was awarded via a full tender and managed by a JCT contract, with a contingency of 5% to 10% of contract value. Costs were guaranteed. The main contractor appointment was made by governors in line with the college’s financial regulation requirements.
Contract performance
The college was pleased with the performance of key contractors, in terms of responsiveness, timeliness and quality of output.
Any variations to contract timelines or cost were managed by a formal change control process, which was agreed by the operational working group. The appointed quantity surveyor maintained the log of issues and changes to contract and shared this regularly with the operational group.
The most significant change control process related to the main programme delay introduced by the discovery of asbestos and contamination from the closed pool, both of which needed professional removal in the demolition phase.
Cost control
Project costs were monitored by the operational project team and reported to the Policy and Resources Committee. Every professional consultant and contractor line was monitored individually against budget. All invoices were approved in line with financial regulations and recorded as evidence to support the grant claim.
The actual final project cost was under budget at £4.2 million against a budgeted £4.5 million, and £200,000 grant funding was not required from DfE due to the underspend. The underspend was a result of robust financial monitoring and tight budget management. The estates manager and the director of finance worked closely with the main contractor, the principal designer or project manager, quantity surveyor and the rest of the project team to ensure the spending was on track.
There was a 3-way checking process, including sign off by the independent cost consultant or quantity surveyor before releasing any payments. The SMT and governors were kept fully informed of budget and payments throughout the course of this project to ensure governance was robust.
Risk management
A detailed project risk register was produced by the project manager and regularly reviewed by the operational management group in design team meetings.
The college took out a performance bond against the risk of contractor insolvency, which was funded from the grant.
The project included 10% contingency budget and no cost increases were allowed under the JCT contract, despite inflationary pressures impacting towards the end of the project.
Health and safety
In addition to the safe removal of asbestos and contamination from the old swimming pool, the safety of the project was ensured by:
- the main entrance to the construction compound employing banks staff to guide heavy traffic
- containing the site with secure fencing
- a separate generous area allocated within the secure compound, and in front of the construction site, for deliveries, minimising traffic risk in the main site
Sustainability
The building was constructed to BREEAM excellent standard.
This ambition formed a step towards the college’s £4 million wider plan to achieve net carbon zero, currently set to halve by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.
Project completion and handover
Practical completion was achieved in January 2023.
A potential benefit of employing a separate architect and QS over a design-and-build contract was the capacity for fully independent monitoring of build quality and snagging.
A comprehensive snagging process was conducted by the college’s professional team to ensure an independent evaluation of final output and rectification of any issues.
£300,000 was set aside from the original budget for fit-out and specification of fixtures. Any snagging issues have been resolved.
Operating and maintenance manuals were challenged and updated by the estates manager, who has a background in engineering and was able to add value in the specification for the operation of building infrastructure. These manuals have all been stored electronically on a shared drive, so they are easily accessible.
The project was delivered £300,000 under budget and to specification at a time of rising inflation. This achievement received recognition from the Post-16 Capacity Fund management team.
Delays introduced by the discovery of asbestos in demolished buildings were well managed and did not significantly impact on programme delivery.
Stakeholders were engaged early in the process and neighbours invited to take part in the planning discussion, with good consultation both on the scheme itself and the context of the masterplan.
The contractors appointed were good quality and delivered to expectation.
The college has met its student growth targets and delivered the business case.
A key lesson learned from the project, due to having an earlier plan ready to be updated and reused, was to start planning early for future projects, to replicate this readiness and seek pre-planning advice as early in the project as possible.
Another learning point was to ensure that the main contractors are aware of potential issues well before engaging electrical and infrastructure subcontractors.
The case is a study of how a sixth form college with a small management team delivered a major project close to its originally planned timescale and below budget, despite the additional challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, unexpected discovery of asbestos in the demolition site and rising inflation.
While the project was not a complex one in terms of eventual output, successful approaches to the various external challenges encountered may prove useful to similar sixth form colleges in particular.
The new Carville building is a fantastic addition. We were delighted that DfE awarded funding for this significant investment into providing a sustainable, modern and enhanced experience for our students and staff.