Community Hubs International Research report · 2017. 10. 27. · 2 Scope ⁄dentify examples of...

FINAL report

9th March 2015

Community Hubs

International research project

ContentsIntroduction

Scope

Process

Case Studies

Conclusions

Appendices:Summary - International Case Study Long List

Summary of Existing Case Study Information

References and Resources

Description - LABV & LIFT

1

2

3

4

5

A1

A2

A3

A4

1

1 IntroductionCommunity Hubs have been developed in a number of diverse locations to deliver different government and community services from a single location. This represents a change from established models based upon service delivery by individual government departments or service providers from different locations, typically based upon asset ownership and management.

The creation of the hubs has typically been a response to the need for enhanced efficiency, integrated service delivery and upgraded facilities. Different circumstances have led to the creation of the community hub model in different places and different mechanisms have been used for funding, procurement, governance and integration.

This project was commissioned by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) to enable a range of international case studies to be explored as a means of determining critical success factors and understanding key lessons to be drawn from other experiences. The concise report format is intended to provide a snapshot of different case studies. These have been shortlisted in response to a range of different factors that have influenced delivery.

This has been defined as a study to consider a limited number of international case studies. A number of other examples that were included within an initial long list have been included as Appendix One. Work previously undertaken by the Department of Education and Training, ‘Focus on Schools as Community Hubs - A Study of Shared Infrastructure Partnerships’, profiling Australian case studies has been included as Appendix Two.

It should be noted that this report has been produced in a format suited to on-screen presentation.

2 Scope

⁄ Identify examples of community hubs that demonstrate efficient use of land, buildings and proximity to transport (maximum six hubs)

⁄ Define characteristics of hub examples

⁄ Identify and evaluate multi-user hubs, drawing on lessons learned, including governance arrangements

⁄ establish evaluation criteria for successful hubs

⁄ Highlight the benefits/barriers in different jurisdictions, e.g. different planning frameworks

⁄ recommend critical success factors for hubs in Queensland

Project scope generally defined as follows:

2

3

3 processThe project process has been guided by reference to a Community Hubs Forum, established to provide direct access to international examples of community hub funding, prourement and delivery.

Step one Step two

VIDeo CoNFereNCe:

COMMUNITY HUBS FORUM

Step three

INItIAL reSeArCH:CASE STUDY

LONG LIST

Step Four

eVALUAtIoN MAtrIX:

CASE STUDY SHORT LIST

CoLLAtIoN oF CASe StUDY

INForMAtIoN

Range-finding discussion and consideration of hub characteristics

Long list compiled from VC and augmented with a range of additional examples from research and exploration

Step Five

DrAFt SUMMArY

report

Step Six

FINAL report + COMMUNITY HUBS FORUM DISCUSSION

Long list compiled from VC and augmented with a range of additional examples from research and exploration

Create draft report as a review mechanism and to identify opportunities to gather direct first-hand insights to inform conclusions

Editorial to define a consistent level of information for each case study, based upon key points of reference

Final report, plus additional discussion forum to explore lessons and conclusions

DefinitionThe phrase ‘Community Hub’ can mean a number of different things. For this exercise the following definition has been used:

Hub – a collection of facilities clustered together on the same or adjoining sites. together, they create a focal point for activity.

4

5

It was noted during the initial forum discussion that significant change related to the creation of hubs has typically been characterised by a ‘burning platform’. This phrase describes the urgent need to change in response to imminent challenge or risk. A number of burning platform scenarios and characteristics were discussed. It is worth noting these as a general framework for the adoption of a hub-based model for clustered facilities and integrated service delivery:

primary Drivers for Change

⁄ Buildings no longer fit for purpose, with limited capital for the delivery of new facilities. this may be combined with a valuable but inflexible asset base of land ownership

⁄ requirement for increased efficiency

⁄ requirement for enhanced service delivery in response to a particular need or crisis in a specific location or community

⁄ Limited patronage and poor service delivery, derived from remote locations and/or fragmented delivery

⁄ Increased demand for services in a particular location, with limited capital for traditional service delivery or limited land available to provide a range of services

Community Hubs driven by the delivery of core government services generally represent a change to business as usual. This change is typically very significant and can therefore be challenging, whilst also being driven by the urgency associated with a ‘burning platform’. This report has not examined the political or policy settings associated with the selected case studies. Whilst this political dimension will be critical to the success of certain approaches, the focus for the study has been the characteristics of innovative and interesting examples to inform the delivery of community hubs within Queensland.It is worth noting that a ‘burning platform’ that demands significant change may also require a new framework to achieve the necessary recalibration, particularly as the hub model is by definition based upon the effective integration of separate entities. For that reason it may be appropriate to consider a new entity that is capable of driving an agenda to achieve change whilst also having the authority to assemble and combine the necessary resources and buy-in from different departments. This may be considered a more pragmatic approach than seeking to achieve change to the focus of whole departments in the short term.

Delivering Change

6

7

A long list of potential case studies was compiled to enable consideration to be given to a wide range of different hubs. An evaluation matrix was used to identify key characteristics of the different examples. The matrix then informed the selection of the final case studies, based upon a number of selection criteria, as follows:

4 Case Studies: How

prIMArY DrIVerS

goVerNANCe

FUNDINg & DeLIVerY

FUNCtIoNS

LAND teNUre

CoNteXt

Name of Community Hub Location

Com

bine

d S

ervi

ce D

eliv

ery

in s

ingl

e lo

cati

on

Bui

ldin

g/ L

and

Use

E

ffici

ency

Com

mun

ity

Dev

elop

men

t or

Cap

acit

y B

uild

ing

Lega

cy o

r his

tori

c ev

olut

ion

Gov

ernm

ent P

olic

y In

itia

tive

Hea

lth

Edu

cati

on

Spo

rt a

nd R

ecre

atio

n

Arts

, Cre

ativ

e In

dust

ries

or

Cul

tura

l

Libr

ary

Ser

vice

s

Cou

ncil

Ser

vice

s

Com

mer

cial

/ H

ospi

talit

y/

Ret

ail

Gov

ernm

ent O

wne

d La

nd

Leas

ehol

d La

nd

Free

hold

Lan

d

(Non

-gov

ernm

ent o

wne

r)

Mul

ti- A

genc

y

Lead

Gov

ernm

ent

Dep

artm

ent

Pri

vate

or C

omm

erci

al

Com

pany

Not

for P

rofi

t or C

hari

tabl

e O

rgan

isat

ion

Publ

ic P

riva

te P

artn

ersh

ip

Str

ateg

ic P

rocu

rem

ent a

nd

Del

iver

y M

odel

Trad

itio

nal P

rocu

rem

ent

Com

mun

ity

Fina

nce

Loan

??

Str

ateg

ic U

rban

R

egen

erat

ion

Pro

gram

New

Bui

ld

Mod

ifica

tion

s to

exi

stin

g fa

cilit

y

Co-lo

catio

n of

sepa

rate

ent

ities

in

stan

d-al

one

build

ings

Urb

an o

r Tow

n C

entr

e

Sub

urba

n or

Reg

iona

l S

etti

ng

Inte

grat

ion

wit

h Tr

ansp

ort

Ser

vice

s/

Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre Scotland, UK H Hubco

Heart of Hounslow Polyclinic UK ? ? H LIFTCo

Raploch Community Campus Scotland, UK ?

Tidemill Academy and Deptford Lounge UK ? ?The Curve, Slough UK ? LABV

New Holly Neighbourhood Campus USA Hope

VI ? ?

Haddington Joint Campus Scotland, UK E Hub Co

Runnymede Civic Offices, UK UK

Dumbrae Library and Community Hub Scotland, UK Hub Co

James Gillespie’s Campus Scotland, UK ? HubCo DBFM

The Campus, Locking Castle UK ? ?Bromley by Bow Healthy Living Centre UK ?

Manning Community Hub AUS

Castlemaine District Community Hub AUS

Ann Tayler Children’s Centre UK SS

Armadale Community Sport Hub Scotland, UK CGL Aviemore Primary School and Community Centre

Scotland, UK CGL MFA & GGZ Zeeheldenbuurt Switz.

Het 4e Gymnasium, Neth.

The Hub Singapore Sing.

Kelvin Grove Urban Village AUS

The Hub West Virginia USA

Red de Innovacion y Aprendizaje Mexico

Tootgarook Community House AUS

Murilla Community Centre AUS

Caboolture Hub AUS ? ?

Swan Hill College AUS ? ?

prIMArY DrIVerS

goVerNANCeFUNDINg & DeLIVerY

FUNCtIoNSLAND

teNUreCoNteXt

evaluation MatrixCASe StUDY LoNg LISt

8

Case Studies: WhyThe following case studies have been identified. The reason for the selection of each is noted below, based upon identification of a range of different characteristics

Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre

Heart of Hounslow Polyclinic

Raploch Community Campus

Tidemill Academy & Deptford Lounge

The Curve, Slough

New Holly Neighbourhood Campus goVerNANCe

FUNDINg & DeLIVerY

FUNCtIoNS CoNteXt

FUNDINg & DeLIVerY

FUNDINg & DeLIVerY

FUNCtIoNS CoNteXt

CoNteXt

Health facility selected for HubCo Scotland procurement and delivery model

Health facility delivered using LIFT PPP mechanism

Innovative schools mix with a strong regeneration focus

Innovative mix of uses around a primary school with a community and regeneration focus

Landmark new facility delivered using LABV mechanism

Selected for scale of ambition, governance, mix and location

9


1

10

11

At A GlanceA new hub for integrated delivery of allied health serivices

Lead Agency: NHS Lothian

partners: City of edinburgh Council

Architect: jmarchitects

Developer: Hub South east Scotland Limited

Value: £9.6m

open: August 2013


12

Primary Driver ⁄ Combined service delivery in

a single location ⁄ Building and Land Use

efficiency (742 sqm communal space)

Functions ⁄ Health (general practice,

Allied Health, Social Services)

⁄ Council Services ⁄ Hospitality (Cafe)Land Tenure ⁄ government owned land

(City of edinburgh Council) ⁄ Building Shared ownership

(NHS Lothian 66.53%, City of edinburgh Council 33.47%)

Governance ⁄ Multi-Agency

Procurement & Delivery ⁄ public private

partnership ⁄ Strategic

procurement and Delivery Model (Hubco)

Summary

Context ⁄ New Build ⁄ Brownfield (derelict site) ⁄ Affordable Housing setting ⁄ Catalyst for Urban regeneration ⁄ Integration with transport

Services

13

“Having all these facilities in one location will benefit everyone in the community and the new site will transform a derelict part of the neighbourhood into a thriving arena.” Councillor paul edie, Health and Social Care Convener for the City of edinburgh Council

Primary Drivers Functions

National Health ServiceFamily Services

Allied Health

General Practice

Local Council Health Services

Community Health Providers

“Both NHS Lothian and City of edinburgh Council are seeking to rationalise their estates portfolio whilst at the

same time create an effective platform for the planning and delivery of services at a neighbourhood level”.

(Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre Business Case 2009)

“Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre [is] just one example of many major health and social care projects underway across

the country. the public purse is under huge financial strain, which is why we need creative, innovative and collaborative

approaches such as the hub initiative to deliver maximum value for taxpayers money.”

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing Nicola Sturgeon


14

60% owned by the SpACe consortium:

⁄ Galliford Try Investments Ltd

⁄ Davis Langdon/AECOM

⁄ Fulcrum Infrastructure Group Ltd.

40% owned by Scottish Futures trust (10%) and the public sector participants (30% equal shares), ⁄ NHS Lothian ⁄ East Lothian Council ⁄ Police Scotland ⁄ The City of Edinburgh

Council ⁄ Fire Scotland ⁄ NHS Borders ⁄ Midlothian Council ⁄ Scottish Borders Council ⁄ West Lothian Council ⁄ Scottish Ambulance

Service

In 2010, the South East Hub public bodies joined with the SPACE consortium as its partner.

‘Hub’ is a national initiative set up by Scottish Government (through the Scottish Futures Trust) whereby public sector organisations across a hub territory work in partnership with each other and a private sector delivery partner in a joint venture company. The model facilitates a long-term strategic, planning approach to the identification of infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of community services within the hub territory.

procurement and Delivery

15

The role of the Territory Partnering Board is: ⁄ to provide strategic leadership

input into the south east Scotland Territory program and to govern the monitoring, support and review of the Territory’s Strategic Delivery Plan

⁄ review the partnership’s financial and operating performance

The Territory Partnering Board was established to ensure that the public private partnership is managed appropriately and responsibly. The membership includes representatives from each of the public sector partners, a representative from Hub South East Scotland, and a representative from the Scottish Futures Trust.

The public / private ownership structure provides a real incentive for both theParticipants and Hubco to work in partnership for their mutual benefit.

This ownership structure gives each of the Participants the added opportunity toinvest sub-debt in revenue financed DBfM projects delivered via Hubco. Thisfurther supports the collaboration and partnership ethos across the Territory.

The above relationships are illustrated on the diagram below.

‰ forWarD

‰

18BaCk

‰

ConTEnTS

Participants SFT Hubco

DevelopmentTeam

LocalProject Teams

ProgrammeTeam

SHAREHOLDERSAGREEMENT

TERRITORY PARTNERING BOARD

TERRITORY PARTNERING AGREEMENT

Local Projects Supply Chain

SPACE (60%)

Participants (30%)

SFT (10%)

governance (Hubco)

⁄ to provide guidance in how new projects are to be progressed

⁄ to serve as a forum for the public sector partners to discuss their forthcoming accommodation and service delivery requirements to ensure an integrated co-ordinated approach

16

EDIN 2756030 v 1 1

Territory Delivery Plan outlines a programme of service needs and projects derived from local hub Delivery plans.

Projects included in TDP

Territory Delivery Plan

STAGE 1 Focus is on strategic background to investment business case

New Project Request

New Project Request

Written request by Relevant Participant for hubco to produce a Stage 1 Submission supported by information appropriate to amount of prior development.

hubco Review

hubco seeks clarification as necessary to enable meaningful response, then confirms in writing within 20 Business Days of receipt of a New Project Request whether or not it will submit a Stage 1 Submission to the Relevant Participant(s).

hubco Reviews New Project

Request

Pricing Report showing

predicted max cost

Procured outside terms

of TPA

hubco Submits Stage 1

Submission

Stage 1 Submission

A Stage 1 Submission is produced within 3 months (or longer period agreed between hubco and the Relevant Participant). It includes option appraisal, outline design solution to RIBA Stage C (or such lesser work stage as the Relevant Participant may require), providing a Project Development Fee and costs and programme for completing Stage 2.

Stage 1 Approval Process

Stage 1 Approval

Relevant Participant(s) have 2 months from the date of receipt in which to notify hubco of approval or rejection of Stage 1 Submission. If following the date of the New Project Request, hubco has failed the Track Record Test then the Relevant Participants are entitled to reject the Stage 1 Submission. hubco meets its own development costs except where the TPA provides otherwise.


of TPA

Rejection for specific

reasons outlined in

TPA

Approved Stage 1 Project Development Fee payable at this stage for Stage 1 Approved Projects

hubco Submits Stage 2

Submission

Stage 2 Submission

Stage 1 Approved Project developed by hubco to RIBA Stage E within the maximum time period for submission indicated in the Stage 1 Submission. The Stage 2 Submission includes the design, plans and drawings, a draft Project Agreement, financial model, commitment letters and a programme from Stage 2 Approval to Financial Close.

STAGE 2 Focus is on detail of the scheme

Stage 2 Approval Stage 2 Approval Process


of TPA

1st Rejection

Pricing Report showing

predicted cost

Relevant Participant(s) approve or reject on specific grounds within 60 Business Days. Approval is determined by achievement of Approval Criteria although the Relevant Participant(s) can reject on other specified grounds. A submission failing one or more Approval Criteria may be resubmitted within 30 days of rejection.

Conclude Project Agreement

Following Stage 2 approval hubco and the Relevant Participant(s) work together to conclude the project contract. Stage 2 Project Management Fee for an approved D&B will be paid on signing of the project agreement and for an approved DBFM will be paid in the service charge.

Approved

2nd rejection for specific reasons

outlined in TPA or failure to resubmit

Conclude Project Agreement

hubco confirms it will not submit a

Stage 1 Submission

Stage 1 Pricing Report

As part of its Stage 1 Submission, hubco produces a pricing report analysing its predicted maximum cost of the New Project. hubco and the Relevant Participant(s) agree which elements or components (as may be adjusted) of the Pricing Data projects can be used as Comparators. These act as price caps but hubco must (including where there are no Comparators) still price on an open book basis and compare against these and other benchmarking information. The Relevant Participants can also require competitive tendering and/or market testing. Drafts of the report are to be provided and updated to reflect outcome of further work prior to inclusion in Stage 1 Submission.

Stage 2 Pricing Report

Stage 1 Pricing Report process is repeated (but on the basis of more developed information) to produce an analysis of hubco's predicted cost of the New Project.

http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/files/publications/Hub_-_flowchart.pdf

⁄ More efficient, quicker, sustainable procurement methodology for public sector bodies, resulting in improved value for money

⁄ Increase joint service working and integration between public sector organisations resulting in better outcomes at the point of service delivery

⁄ Increase opportunities for strategic asset management across public sector bodies

⁄ Maximise community and stakeholder engagement

⁄ Ensure local communities and SMEs benefit in terms of employment and training

“The most important aspect in relation to the success of Hub is that the joint venture vehicle is seen as a true partnership

by the public sector participants. Any mistrust / tension between the public and private sector partners will lead to

failure of the programme. In order for success to be achieved, complete transparency is key.”

Kevin Bradley, Board of Directors, Hub South East Scotland

Hub Flowchart

reported Benefits

17

‰ foRwARd

‰

27bAck

‰

conTEnTS

PrOJEcT PrOcUrEmEnT TIEr 1 ESTImaTED UnDEr cOnSTrUcTIOn DELIVErInG ParTIcIPanT VaLUE rOUTE cOnTracTOr STarT DaTE cOmPLETIOn DaTE

JamES GILLESPIE’S new High School – The city of £34m design, build, Morrison construction June 2012 July 2016HIGH ScHOOL teaching block, Edinburgh finance and

sports and council Maintainperforming artscomplex

SaS amBULancE new ambulance Scottish £2m design and build Morrison construction January 2012 december 2014STaTIOn - GaLaSHIELS station on the site Ambulance

of the borders General ServiceHospital – including office accommodation,and a workshop formaintenance and repair

rISInG rOLLS – PHaSE 2 4 x new school The city of £3.4m design and build Morrison construction february 2014 August 2014extensions at Victoria, Edinburgh broughton, St david’s council and craigour Park

GaLaSHIELS TranSPOrT new interchange to Scottish £5.2m design and build Morrison construction January 2014 June 2015InTErcHanGE include concourse, borders

waiting area, passenger councilconveniences, disabledfacilities, tourist informationand offices. Part of theoverall wider bordersRailway project.

cEc PrOPErTy Refurbishment at The city of £400k design and build Morrison construction June 2014 october 2014rEFUrBISHmEnT westfield House and Edinburgh

High Street offices – small councilscale office accommodation refurbishment to tight timescales.

Hubco and its supply chain partners work in partnership with Participants to plan, design, build, fund and maintain buildings in the most efficient and effective manner.

http://www.hubsoutheastscotland.co.uk/assets/h/u/hub-south-east_2014_

electronicfinalforweb.pdf

The James Gillespie’s HIgh School is the first HubCo Design Build Fund Maintain (DBFM) project.

⁄ A single partner enters into a long-term contract as a “provider” to provide an available building for use for a fixed period of time

⁄ Construction is by the provider or its sub-contractor with risk transferred – no payment until completion

⁄ The provider raises finance to pay for the building to be constructed

⁄ Hard facilities management – the planned and reactive maintenance of the building and life cycle replacement of elements is done by the provider

⁄ The provider is paid a fixed annual fee known as a unitary charge over a 25-30 year duration for the use of the building

⁄ At the end of the contract the building (in good condition) belongs to the Authority for no further charge

Hubco Supply Chain

Heart of Hounslow polyclinic

2

18

19

At A GlanceClient: Hounslow primary Care trust

Architects: penoyre & prasad LLp

Contractors: Willmott Dixon

Value: £18m

Completion date:

2007

New Build: 9,000 sq metres over six floors

Developer: Building Better Health West London Limited


20

Primary Driver ⁄ Combined service delivery in a

single location

⁄ Building and Land Use efficiency

⁄ government policy Initiative (Local Improvement Finance trust)

Functions ⁄ Health (primary Health, Allied

Health, Social Services)

Land Tenure ⁄ government owned land

Governance ⁄ Lead government Department

Procurement and Delivery ⁄ public private partnership

⁄ Strategic procurement and Delivery Model (LiftCo)

Context ⁄ New Build

⁄ Apartment and affordable housing co-located on site generating revenue stream

⁄ Brownfield site which included six single storey health buildings

Summary

21

Primary Driver“polyclinics are designed to make it easier for people to receive better health and social care where and when they need it.

the walk-in service complements the gp care that already exists in Hounslow by giving patients additional access to care at times when surgeries maybe closed or difficult to get to....We know a lot of people go to A&e with problems that aren’t life threatening or are worried about their health. often it’s because people aren’t sure where the best place to go is or because other services are closed.

offering routine access to a gp for 12 hours every day of the year at a town centre location should reduce the need for patients to use hospital accident and emergency departments.”NHS Hounslow Chief executive Nick relph


Community Meeting Rooms

Staff Rooms

Community Dental Care

Family Planning

Functions

Mental Health Clinic

Childrens’ Services & Nursery

Ground Floor

Outpatient Services

Community Services

Affordable Housing

4 General PracticesFirst Floor

Cafe

top Floor

Second Floor

First Floor

ground Floor

22

Building Better Health - West London Limited

This is the LIFT Company (LiftCo) for Ealing, Hounslow, Hammersmith and Fulham, was formed in 2003 as a joint venture public-private partnership between Fulcrum, the Department of Health (through Community Health Partnerships) and the NHS in three boroughs in West London. Community Health Partnerships owns a 40% share of the LiftCo.

(Diagram from Public Private Partnership and a modern NHS Case Study, Fulcrum)

Government Policy Initiative - LIFT

⁄ The LIFT Program has driven a significant improvement in the quality of health service accommodation, improving working conditions and facilities for a wide range of service providers.

⁄ Outmoded and inadequate premises have been replaced with high quality, flexible accommodation conforming to NHS standards

⁄ Levering in private funding for the construction and maintenance of modern, integrated facilities, to provide an extended range of healthcare services in more accessible locations

Characteristics

In the example below, the shares in the PPP, the LIFT Company, are held 60% private sector and 40% public sector. When both sectors work together they can both bring skills and qualities to the partnership to make projects work for local people.

PPP – and a modern NHSPPPs provide strong and flexible support for health care developments. People rightly expect more closely integrated health and social care services and public

sector organisations put a high priority on these developments. However, they are complex and time consuming to deliver. Fulcrum and Renova’s recent experience is that it is the quality of the partnership between the public and private sector which helps to facilitate these larger schemes.

Experienced investors like Fulcrum understand the market and can be more flexible than would be possibleunder PFI. This has meant, for example, that

Partnerships and the future

Private SectorPartner

Community Health

Partnerships(CHP)

LIFTCompany

Public Sector End UserHead Lease / Under Lease

through CHP

StrategicPartnering

BoardNHS

organisations, local authorities,

Health and Wellbeing Boards

and LIFTCo

LIFTCo Shareholders

Construction Contractor

Design Team and Consultants

Facilities ManagementContractor

Supply Chain







Community Health

Partnerships(CHP)

LIFTCompany


through CHP

StrategicPartnering

BoardNHS



and LIFTCo

LIFTCo Shareholders




Supply Chain







Community Health

Partnerships(CHP)

LIFTCompany


through CHP

StrategicPartnering

BoardNHS



and LIFTCo

LIFTCo Shareholders




Supply Chain

23

LIFt - BenefitsIncreased Service IntegrationThis co-location of a range of service providers in one building has enabled better service integration and, in turn, facilitated improved joint working as well as better integration of primary and secondary care and specialist services. It has also helped reduce unnecessary hospital appointments and allowed more efficient referrals, avoiding people getting lost in the system.

Inter-agency co-operation is also improved, for example, between health and local authority services such as benefits advice, housing support and specialist advice services on issues including immigration, drugs and alcohol.

Improvements in Service Efficiency

LIFT developments also offer potential financial savings and improvements in service efficiency. For example, shared services, more effective use of space and more efficient buildings can reduce overheads and generate potential income as a result of vacating sites and buildings, enhancing the value of assets.

New methods of care leading to centralisation of services can result in access problems for patients - New arrangements sometimes lead to less convenient locations for patients, which can be a particular problem for those with mobility or transport problems.

The LIFTCo is intended to operate as a local property development business with overhead costs spread over a number of projects. Given the cost to the local health economy of developing LIFT buildings, and the long term funding requirements, there is a risk that a continuous flow of projects may not be taken forward. If so, the model may not achieve the expected benefits.

One intended benefit of LIFT is the co-location of a range of healthcare services. There is concern, however, that such benefits may not be fully realised in the absence of integrated IT systems allowing quick referrals and data transfers between GPs and the hospital patient administration systems, which control access to specialists.

The effectiveness of Strategic Partnering Boards is crucial to the performance of LIFT. Chairs of Strategic Partnering Boards are appointed and remunerated by Primary Care Trusts. Members come from local stakeholder bodies. There is a risk that the Board can become a forum for discussion rather than a decisive and results focussed body. House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, NHS Local Improvement Finance Trusts Forty-seventh House of Commons Parliamentary Report

LIFt - risks


⁄ Joint ownership allows for asset rationalisation and greater integration of services

⁄ Delivery model allows for appropriate phasing and delivery of community facilities across a region

⁄ Forward planning and a level of certainty is an important characteristic of this approach

⁄ HubCo as a provate sector delivery partner model builds upon BSF & LIFT, with extended services related to estate planning and other strategic activity, in addition to delivery

Notes and observations


⁄ Strategic Partnering Boards allows for policy input into projects

⁄ Value for Money when delivering multiple projects

⁄ Shared risks/rewards


24

raploch Community Campus

3

25

26

At A Glance:Lead Agency: Stirling Council

School Capacity: 650 primary pupils,

55 (Fte) nursery children

40 ASN pupils

project Value: £17m (approx. cap value)

part of broader £120m regeneration initiative for raploch

gross Internal Floor Area:

11,018m2

Design team: J M Architects Ltd, edinburgh

Completion Date: 2008

procurement route:

Stirling Schools ppp


27

Primary Driver ⁄ Building and Land Use efficiency

(bringing together on one campus three existing schools that had been in other parts of the raploch area in a community inclusive campus )

⁄ Community Development and Capacity Building

Functions ⁄ education - primary, and Continuing

education

⁄ Sports and recreation

⁄ Library Services

⁄ Commercial and Hospitality

Land Tenure ⁄ government owned land

Governance ⁄ Lead government Department

⁄ raploch Community partnership

Procurement and Delivery ⁄ public private partnership

Context ⁄ New Build

⁄ Brownfield site previously used for retail - demolished

⁄ Strategic urban regeneration program

⁄ policy Framework ‘Building Better Schools: Investing in Scotland’s Future’

Summary

28

Primary Driver

The main aim of the Campus project was to support the development of education amongst young people and encourage lifelong learning in the heart of Raploch.

The idea was to provide shared space where educational, sports and community facilities can work together to provide an enhanced and revitalised service for the people of Raploch.

It set out to provide replacements for a number of buildings that were in very poor condition and not rated highly in terms of suitability.

“raploch Community Campus was designed to provide shared facilities that helped to facilitate the integration and joint working of the four schools. All primary and ASN pupils use the same outside spaces at playtimes and all mix and have lunch together in the dining hall. the design of the Campus means that all facilities are shared, such as the Sports Halls, expressive Arts Studio, Dining area and resource room.”

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/Doc/285201/0086644.pdf

Characteristics

Experience

The project has provided opportunities for co-operative

working both between educational establishments and

with community partners and provides enhanced service

delivery for the local Raploch community. It provides a

range of leisure, further education and other opportunities

for the community and students. Primary and Additional

Support Needs pupils share the Dining hall, Sports halls,

Expressive Arts Studio, Resource room and outside spaces.

Catering, including the school meals service and a bistro

open to the public, is provided in an innovative way through a

partnership arrangement with Forth Valley College where the

kitchen provides a training venue for the college. There are hair

and beauty training facilities provided by the college within the

Campus. There is also a community facility that offers advice

on a range of services such as a Credit Union, employment

issues and adult education courses. The variety of groups using

the facilities includes Stirling University, SEPA, Castle Business

Park companies and Scottish Government.

29

The Raploch Community Campus is a flagship education project at the centre of the regeneration master plan for the Raploch area of Stirling, comprising of three primary schools, a special school and a nursery.

The Campus also provides Forth Valley College with teaching accommodation, while the local community benefit from extensive community sports facilities and office space, which is used both by the Council and other community partners.

The Campus, developed by the Council with the schools, teachers, parents, pupils and members of the local community, provides excellent opportunities for co-operative working both between the educational establishments and with the wider community partners.

It provides a range of leisure and further education opportunities in a building that members of the local community can truly feel is their own.

Functions

Kildean School

St Mary’s Primary

Raploch Primary School

Nursery

Sports

Beauty YouthArts and Music

Ground Floor Plan only - jamarchitects

Activity Areas ⁄ Raploch Primary School

⁄ Our Lady’s Primary School

⁄ Castleview School

⁄ Raploch Nursery

⁄ Playhaven out of school care facility

⁄ Primary Pupil Support

⁄ Support for Learning Area Network Team

⁄ Expressive Arts Studio

⁄ Music & Practice Rooms

⁄ Shared Learning resource area & library

⁄ Flexible hub Learning areas off each set of 6 Learning Spaces

⁄ School Street

⁄ External performance stage

⁄ shared Schools play areas

⁄ shared dining facilities

⁄ shared staff room for all c.130 Campus users

⁄ sensory gardens

⁄ nursery garden

⁄ allotment area

⁄ Forth Valley College ( Bistro, Hospitality training and Service functions catering, Hair & Beauty Training)

⁄ COMMUNITY: youth space

⁄ library (electronic)

⁄ 8 x shared community meeting rooms

⁄ visiting services workbase

⁄ Active Stirling Ltd (Sports & Leisure) shared facilities with Education

30

tidemill Academy and Deptford Lounge

4

31

32

At A GlanceLead Agency: Lewisham Council

Architect: pollard thomas edwards

Main contractor: galliford try

Completed: 2011 total cost: £25m

Funding: Combination of London Borough of Lewisham, DCLg co-location fund grant of £5m and L&Q group

procurement and Delivery:

Design & Build

gross internal floor area:

School area 3,556m² including shared facilities in lounge building (excl. external play)


33

Primary Driver ⁄ Building and Land Use efficiency (Shared

School and Community Facilities) ⁄ Community Development and Capacity

BuildingFunctions ⁄ education ⁄ Library Services ⁄ Council Services ⁄ Work Studios ⁄ Affordable HousingLand Tenure ⁄ government owned landGovernance ⁄ Lead government DepartmentProcurement and Delivery ⁄ traditional procurement

Context ⁄ New Build ⁄ Strategic urban regeneration program

Summary

The Tidemill Academy is a two form entry primary school. The new building was conceived as part of the broader regeneration strategy for Deptford Town Centre, within an area of challenging social and economic conditions. The school was officially classed as a failing school before being turned around through special measures and occupied a building constructed in 1900. The creation of an integrated facility enabled a larger school to be created with additional shared facilities attached to the Deptford Lounge. Resolution Studios was added as a development opportunity to create affordable housing units and studio spaces. Griffin Square provides a valuable civic space as the setting for the new buildings.

34

Deptford Lounge is part of a development which includes a state-of the art library and community facilities which forms the third wing of a new building for Tidemill Academy.

Key to the design of the whole complex is the concept of the co-location of education and community facilities. The Lounge houses shared facilities which are isolated from the public during the school day, and open only via the school, but out of school hours they are opened up for community use via the new library.

The school hall, rooftop ball court and refectory are all designed for dual use with separate access points from within the school, from the Lounge, and from the public realm.

The far wing of the school on Resolution Way consists of a five-storey building which provides studios and exhibition space for small businesses and local artists, and 38 affordable apartments.

The Deptford Lounge and Tidemill Academy open onto Giffin Square, a new public space at the heart of Deptford.

Functions

2 Form Entry Primary School

Resolution Studios

Griffin Square

Deptford Lounge

Library Services

35

Integrated Uses

“our school has become a central focus in the local community. We are clear about our responsibility and the contribution we can make in building community cohesion and developing social capital”.https://www.tes.co.uk/Upload/Attachments/teS/3076877/informationforapplicants.pdf

http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/tidemill-academy-and-deptford-lounge/

36

Confronting Challenges & Managing risks“there is nervousness around co-locating schools

with other uses because of increased reporting

of crimes relating to children in the UK and

the frequency of school shootings elsewhere.

Alongside these fears, we are experiencing a

surge in demand for school places, particularly for

urban primary schools. the result of this is that

we are having to consider solutions that confront

and manage risks, rather than avoiding them

altogether.

the Deptford Lounge / tidemill Academy project

is a very successful example of this and it has

inspired other projects in the capital to combine

education, residential and community uses.

the school design and delivery community now

actively debating the best way of achieving similar

projects and overcoming the difficulties that they

can present.

one immediate issue to consider is that there may not be

one lead client organisation because there is an equal stake

from the Local Authority’s Children’s Services Department,

a Housing Association, a community organisation and

potentially an existing school. We have seen instances where

the Local planning Authority, with the backing of the Local

Children’s Services Dept, steps into this role because they

have decision making powers on the type and quantity of

development that takes place.

the Local Authority has responsibility for providing a

sufficient number of school places in their borough and, in

some areas where demand is very high, they are requiring that

all sites are considered for education use before anything

else. the mixed use schemes then become a way of boosting

the finance required to build social infrastructure.

An integrated response with real local community buy-in then

has the potential to deliver a range of additional co-benefits

derived from the combined community hub facilities”.

Source: Mairi Johnson, AECOM Global Education Lead (edited) - based upon national debate and an overview provided at a recent conference by London Borough of Croydon Planning Department.

37


38http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/tidemill-academy-and-deptford-lounge/


⁄ Strong Policy Framework and regeneration focus

⁄ Schools retaining identity yet sharing lower use facilites

⁄ Community use of campus



⁄ Example of how shared use and development mix can be managed through site-responsive design

⁄ Arts programming at Deptford Lounge attracts visitors to the area

⁄ High density urban setting - influential in determining the viability of the mix and uses

⁄ Significant profile for community activity as an integrated element of the development mix

⁄ Close proximity of school to public square - creating a range of front doors (approachable)

⁄ Could this result have been achieved with a more strategic procurement and delivery mechanism (such as LABV)?

tidemill Academy/Deptford Lounge

39

the Curve, Slough

5

40

41

At A GlanceLead Agency: Slough Borough Council

Constr. Value: £16m

Completion: Due for completion in autumn 2015

Developer: Slough regeneration partnership LABV

overview: New Build with 4,500 square metres of floor space, 280 seat performance space

the Curve, Slough

42

Primary Driver ⁄ Building and Land Use efficiency ⁄ Community Development and

Capacity Building Functions ⁄ education (training Facilities) ⁄ Library Services ⁄ Council Services ⁄ Arts, Culture and Creative

industries (Museum and performance Suite)

⁄ Co-location of community and cultural facilities

⁄ CafeLand Tenure ⁄ government owned landGovernance ⁄ Lead government Department

Procurement and Delivery ⁄ public private partnership ⁄ Local Asset Backed Vehicle

(Slough regeneration partnership)

Summary

Context ⁄ New Build ⁄ Strategic urban

regeneration program (town Square creation)

⁄ Co-location of separate entities in stand-alone buildings

43

Library

Computer Suite

Training Rooms

Museum

Cafe

The Curve is a multi-functional flexible community building, designed as part of the council’s priority for the Heart of Slough and town centre regeneration and to streamline community buildings and improve access to services. The project is a priority in the administration’s election manifesto. It is intended to enable the following: ⁄ Link elements of the Heart of Slough and

encourage development of the shopping centre by connecting William Street and McKenzie Square and encouraging local people to visit the town centre

⁄ Improve the vitality and viability of the town centre ⁄ Improve access to learning facilities in a town centre

location ⁄ Enable community and cultural services to deliver a one

stop service ⁄ A focal point and landmark building in one of the most

prominent locations in the town ⁄ Re-development of three existing community premises

http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s28835/Cabinet%2024.04.13%20The%20Curve%20Appendix.pdf

purpose and Functions

44

The LABV is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that facilitates the Council enhancing the value of asset disposals through becoming a developer and so influencing the use of sites together with the design and layout of the redevelopment.

The Council also shares risks and rewards of development to secure both an elevated land value but also to share the residual surplus from the proceeds of a commercial development.

The special purpose vehicle provides for the Council and the Private Sector Partner (PSP) sharing the ownership of the Company on a 50:50 basis and also sharing the investment and cost of development on the same basis.


CouncilPrivate Sector

Partner

50:50Company ownership

45

• Robustbutflexiblecontractmanagement–severalconsulteesfrom both the public and private sectors noted the need for effective contract management skills. Since some of the more recent LABVs are akin to frameworks in some respects, as discussed later in the paper, there is an onus on both parties to be proactive, flexible, opportunistic and imaginative in using the partnership’s resources to best advantage. One public sector representative observed that the ethos of the partnership will be determined at a very early stage and the ethos will drive behaviours. A distinction was made between wrapping a contract around an existing estate to dictate the way it is managed, and the more constructive option of creating a flexible partnership that happens to have access to an estate at day one to manage and develop. Robust contract management was viewed as a two-way process to the extent that both the internal clients (e.g. occupying departments) and the private sector provider may need to be managed with a firmhandalbeitindifferentways

• Qualityofadvisors–somebiddersobservedthattheidentityof the advisors was a material factor in considering the deliverability and viability of the bidding opportunity

• Cash–thepublicsectormaycontributecash,securedthroughPrudential Borrowing or reserves, to help support the ‘up front’ investment required to enable development, or to support marginal schemes as they are taken forward during the contract term of the LABV

• Ideas–itwasappreciatedbymostconsulteesthattheprivatesector should not be expected to have a monopoly on ideas and innovation and the partnership should allow good ideas to generate and flourish irrespective of their origin. On the other hand, there was a very clear expectation that the private sector would have the skills and experience to identify ‘off the wall’ yet deliverable opportunities – to innovate.

LABV

Private sector– Finance

– Expertise

– Innovation

– Early commitment

– Demonstration of partnership

– Commerciality

Combined– Strong leadership

– Long term view

– Appetite for partnership

– Programme management

– Contract management

Public sector– Property and cash

– Vision

– Ideas

– Political insight

– Corporate asset management

– Quality of advisors

Figure 3: Contributions of partners – extended model

16

LABV PartnershipsThe investment required by both the public and private sectors in creating a LABV is significant, and regeneration is a long-term aim that needs to isolate itself from the vagaries of the relatively short-term property cycle.

These facts point towards partnerships being established of at least 15-20 years in length. (Local Asset Backed Vehicles. Success Story or

Unproven Concept? March 2012, RICS)


46

Slough regeneration partnershipThe Curve is being delivered by the Slough Regeneration Partnership, a 50:50 joint venture between Slough Borough Council and Morgan Sindall Investments Limited.

The Slough Regeneration Partnership is transforming the borough of Slough; bringing new homes, public buildings, leisure facilities and schools - in total a £1 billion investment in the town.

reasons the LABV is viable for Slough Borough Council ⁄ Higher rate of return from

disposals

⁄ reduced cost and funding Slough Borough Council schemes

⁄ procurement cost savings and shorter gestation times for projects

⁄ Integrated regeneration activity

⁄ Commercial development and development expertise

⁄ Investment in commercial assets by the private Sector partner

⁄ transfer of staff to the LABV

(Slough Borough Council Cabinet Report, 19 September, 2012)


New Holly Neighbourhood Campus

6

47

48

At A GlanceDeveloper: Seattle Housing Authority

Seattle Housing Authority is a public corporation, providing affordable housing to more than 28,000 people

Funding: A US Department of Housing

Hope VI grant that made redevelopment possible and was designed to knit the distressed Holly park neighborhood back into the surrounding community.


49

Primary Driver ⁄ Community Development and

Capacity Building Functions ⁄ education ⁄ Library Services ⁄ Council and Community ServicesLand Tenure ⁄ UnknownGovernance ⁄ Not for profit organisation

(the NewHolly Neighborhood Cluster is a group of independent, community based service providers that meet regularly to implement a wide menu of human services at the NewHolly Neighborhood Campus.)

Procurement and Delivery ⁄ traditional procurement

Context ⁄ New Build ⁄ part of affordable housing

development (New Holly 124 acre site)

⁄ Integration with transport Services/ High pedestrian Areas

Summary

50

Primary Driver“In 1995 the Seattle Housing Authority received a $48 million Hope VI grant to revitalize Holly park.

the push was on to revitalize the 124-acre site that consisted of 871 failing irreparable housing units and the only way to accomplish this task was to start all over again.” (http://www.seattlehousing.org)

Functionsthe New Holly Neighborhood Campus complements the housing community by providing essential community services and is a key part of the strategy. A group of non-profit partners are working together at the campus to provide essential community services.

Service providers:

⁄ Campus Management - Impact Property Management, NewHolly Campus Condominium Association

⁄ Health: Seattle University School of Nursing

⁄ Child Development: Megumi Pre-School, Neighborhood House - Early Head Start, Neighborhood House - Head Start

⁄ HOPE VI: Seattle Housing Authority

⁄ Citizenship: Center for Career Alternatives

⁄ Library: Seattle Public Library

⁄ Community Building: Community Building Office

⁄ Translations and Multicultural Resources

⁄ Counseling: Atlantic Street Center - Youth & Family Counseling

⁄ Education: Catholic Community Services Youth Tutoring Program, East African Community Services, Horn of Africa Services, South Seattle College Learning Center, Vietnamese Friendship Association, Somali Kids Tutoring Service

⁄ Elder Village: Providence Health Systems: Peter Claver House, Retirement Housing Foundation: Esperanza House, Retirement Housing Foundation: Park Place

⁄ Teens: Atlantic Street Center: Teen Center

⁄ Employment: The Job Connection

⁄ Youth & Family: Atlantic Street Center: Family Center, Girl Scouts, Family and Social Services, Parent-Child Home Program, Play & Learn Groups,

⁄ Community Meeting Rooms

Characteristics

⁄ The LABV is a long range public private partnership for broad scale urban regeneration programs

⁄ As such, the procurement and delivery model is a specific response to the scale and ambition of the regeneration focus and broader economic objectives

⁄ Co-location of arts and cultural facilities with library services is reasonably common

the Curve, Slough



⁄ Influence of Procurement and Delivery Model on education and health outcomes of the community

⁄ Impact of co-location, shared facilities and services on building community capacity and cohesion (and other indicators)

⁄ Measuring the success of different models

⁄ Factors within the existing community that lead to greater engagement with hubs that are ‘new builds’ (the positive impact of inward investment)

⁄ Governance Models and the relationship with enhanced capacity and engagement

51

5 ConclusionsA number of conclusions and observations have been drawn from the case studies as a way to summarise the key issues. The conclusions have been arranged in thematic clusters that seek to relate the case study experiences to the strategic objectives of this project. In this way the conclusions are intended to provide a general framework to guide further consideration of community hub delivery.

The thematic clusters have been arranged as follows:

⁄ Key Drivers, Ambition and Scale

⁄ Culture Change and Champions

⁄ Funding, procurement and Delivery

⁄ process and opportunities

52

53

ConclusionsKey Drivers, Ambition and Scale

⁄ There is no obvious single ‘silver bullet’ solution to define/guarantee success.

⁄ Key Drivers need to be broadly evaluated at the outset to ensure optimisation potential is assessed and appropriate governance arrangements are established.

⁄ In particular, the focus upon community needs clear definition. Community may appear in the title whilst service delivery and governance may be limited to delivery of government services from a single location. Expectations will need careful management.

⁄ A ‘hub’ need not imply a single campus or building. Depending upon context, a mix of new and existing buildings may be appropriate.

⁄ It could be argued that big ambition has the potential to achieve the most significant scale of change and potentially unlock additional co-benefits associated with that change. Positive transformation is a compelling justification for change to business as usual.

54

ConclusionsKey Drivers, Ambition and Scale - Continued

⁄ Community Hubs can deliver more efficient use of land through amalgamation of existing services into a single location.

⁄ Ambition and setting should take account of the catalyst potential of a new community hub to encourage additional development, which may be a key driver in a town or city-centre location.

⁄ A governance model capable of sub-letting elements of buildings would appear to be an advantage to ensure future flexibility.

55

ConclusionsCulture Change and Champions

⁄ Community Hubs are being considered as part of a big change to business as usual. The shift from a departmental asset ownership model to something else will require robust champions to drive real change.

⁄ The case studies suggest that an abstract or process-driven framework for the establishment of a community hub may not be sufficient to realise the full potential of the new model. It could be argued that a champion (or champions) with a powerful embedded vision for enhanced service delivery within a local community is a key element for success.

⁄ The creation of a hub in name does not mean that a different framework for service delivery will be achieved, nor does it mean that efficiencies beyond a reduced scale of land ownership will be realised.

⁄ Changes to the delivery philosophy may need to be supported by appropriate and authentic changes to governance and the stakeholder mix to unlock additional benefits.

56

ConclusionsFunding, procurement and Delivery

⁄ Economic drivers are a significant factor in determining where and how delivery can be achieved.

⁄ 50:50 asset ownership models (where the public sector contributes land and insight) enable a simple model for sharing risk and reward.

⁄ Market conditions (and political climate) at the point of inception are likely to influence the character of medium to long-term partnership arrangements well into the future.

⁄ Opportunity costs need to be considered as part of the analysis of benefits [for example: reduced local access through loss or consolidation of locations].

⁄ The staging of construction may be an important consideration to balance cost-effective delivery in the short term with provision for future flexibility related to future demand and population growth.

⁄ PPP methods may not be perfect, but need to be assessed against traditional procurement methods, which also have imperfections.

57

ConclusionsFunding, procurement and Delivery - Continued

⁄ Evaluation of community hub performance needs to be broad enough to account for a broad level of indicators (some of which may be intangible at the outset). This includes a wide range of co-benefits for the local community related to job creation, community cohesion and capacity-building.

⁄ Change driven by the need for greater efficiency in procurement and delivery (with medium to long-term arrangements associated with some PPP models) may create an inflexible design framework that is less able to adapt in response to site-specific opportunities in different locations. Care should therefore be given to consideration of the balance between efficiences and site-specific responses.

⁄ Procurement arrangements fixed over time typically take time to achieve efficiencies (LIFT example, based upon seven years of activty) and should therefore be understood to be a medium to long-term commitment.

⁄ Partnership arrangements (PPP) are typically a response to economic conditions (the absence of capital).

58

Conclusionsprocess and opportunities

⁄ The character of the front door and the mix of services and facilities is likely to be a significant factor in attracting patronage.

⁄ This approach represents significant change. The development of a community hubs model should consider the potential for additional future changes to service delivery and seek to accommodate these (as far as possible) through appropriate flexibility.

⁄ Four of the case studies noted the presence of a public square or civic space as a significant factor in determining the success of the community hub. A move away from a more traditional campus-style approach to education delivery may therefore be considered an advantage in ensuring that the new community services are welcoming.

⁄ A number of case studies made specific reference to the significance of a collaborative and bespoke design process that was capable of establishing an interactive framework to create flexible and intelligent spaces. This would suggest that a standardised modular design approach is unlikely to optimise the performance of a new community hub.

59

Summary - International Case Study Long List

A1

This is the first in a new generation of joint civic offices within the UK, which meet Government aspirations to combine a range of services under one roof, in this instance the local council, police and a public library. The 65,000 square feet of area provides accommodation for some 250 employees at Runnymede Borough Council along with accommodation for Surrey Police, Safer Runnymede and a new public library for Surrey County Council. This is a unique public building that communicates the changing culture of local democracy as well as communal identity and civic pride, both for the citizens of Addlestone and the staff of RBC.

http://fcbstudios.com/work/view/runnymede-civic-offices

Runnymede Civic Offices

This project consisted of the planning, design and construction of a new joint primary school campus on the site of the existing St Mary’s primary school in Haddington. It provides accommodation for both denominational and nondenominational primaries, as well as a new purpose built nursery on a single site. Each school retains its own distinct identity and general teaching accommodation, while core facilities, including games hall, dining/kitchen and heating plant are shared. The new campus provides a high quality learning and teaching environment with a range of indoor and outdoor spaces to support the delivery of curriculum for Excellence.

http://www.hubsoutheastscotland.co.uk/projects/completed-projects/haddington-infant-school-and-st-marys-primary-school

Haddington Infant School and St Mary Primary East Lothian – Haddington Joint Campus

The project comprises the creation of a high profile library, day care centre and community hub at Drumbrae and will contribute to key council objectives by encouraging community involvement and community based activity, providing access to learning and development opportunities and building social capital.

The construction of the new facility creates opportunity to meet community need for a local office access point in the heart of the Western Edinburgh area. A “one-stop-shop” approach creates improve access to a wider range of council services for the public in the local area and will deliver increased efficiencies through the sharing of facilities and integration of staff teams.

http://www.hubsoutheastscotland.co.uk/projects/completed-projects/drumbrae-library-and-community-hub

Drumbrae Library and Community Hub

60

61

Hubco’s first Design, Build, Finance and Maintain (DBFM) project, the James Gillespie’s Campus in Edinburgh, is currently under construction. The DBFM contract under the hub programme, and the Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) structure provide routes to pay as you use for public sector buildings from ongoing revenue budgets rather than pay as you build from traditional capital budgets. Under traditional capital procurement of a building, the public sector client body first specifies the requirement for a new building. They may then tender for a designer to develop the design and then procure a construction contractor separately to build it, or procure a single contractor to design and build the building. Under any of these routes the work is paid for by the public sector from capital budgets. Under DBFM the government authority pays a “provider” for an available building over a life of 25-30 years.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/35160/item_81_new_james_gillespies_high_school_campus

James Gillespie’s High School New Campus

The Campus opened in 2004 as a multi purpose facility, bringing together a wide range of services under one very striking and modern roof. The building operates as a high quality conference and meeting venue, community centre, leisure centre, library and is home to two schools with over 500 children coming attending school at The Campus. Herons Moor Academy is a 420 capacity school for children aged three to 11 years old. There is also a 30 place nursery. Baytree School is a special school for children who have severe learning difficulties and/or profound and multiple learning difficulties.

Maximum sharing between the two schools and community facilities responds to council’s brief for “a community building that happens to be used for education”.

http://davidmorleyarchitects.co.uk/projects/the-campus,-locking-castle

The Campus, Locking Castle

The Bromley by Bow Centre aims to serve the local community by providing a wide range of services and activities, which are integrated and cooperative in nature. They host the local GP surgery, a variety of social enterprises, a children’s centre, artists’ studios, a healthy living centre, and provide adult education courses, care and health services for vulnerable adults, outreach programmes and a range of advice services. This approach enables GPs to refer patients to services that help to tackle the social determinants of ill health, including welfare, employment, housing and debt advice services. The centre has received international recognition for its social entrepreneurial approach to community regeneration and effective delivery of integrated services. Their services are tailored to the needs of the whole community - families, young people, vulnerable adults and elders. http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/bromley-by-bow-centre

Bromley by Bow

This project was initiated by the City of South Perth in response to studies undertaken demonstrating that the existing community facilities were reaching the end of their useful life. The Manning Community Hub project is a $14 million civic project which will be a landmark and iconic precinct for Manning and Salter Point, as well as the broader community. Community consultation found there to be support and enthusiasm for an integrated neighbourhood community hub, inclusive of a relocated Manning Library. The proposed Manning Community Centre will comprise the following facilities and activities, many of which are already located within this site - new Manning Library, new modern Community Hall and meeting spaces, new Early Years space, Moorditj Keila Aboriginal Group, Child Health Clinic and Manning Rippers Football Club.

http://www.southperth.wa.gov.au/Our-City/Major-Projects/Manning-Community-Hub/

Manning Community Hub

Castlemaine District Community Health has had support from the Victorian Department of Health and local partners, Castlemaine Health, Mount Alexander Shire Council, Windarring with other service providers to invest in a new building and develop a community hub that will provide a whole range of essential services, conveniently located together. The organisation, together with the Department of Health, has been exploring possible sites with a view to capitalise on the opportunities provided by partnership, capital funding, service model design and co-location opportunities.

This strategy presents an opportunity to house a great range of services as a ‘one-stop shop’. The development of a Community Hub that encompasses health, wellbeing and community spirit is the vision for the future.http://www.cdchcastlemaine.com.au/pdfs/CDCH_Annual_Reports.pdf

Castlemaine District Community Health Community Hub

The Ann Tayler Children’s Centre is a Trailblazer project for the Sure Start programme in East London. Cazenove has designed a new landmark for central Hackney, extending the existing community centre at the front so that the building is brought to the pavement line of the site to create a dynamic and welcoming street presence. A new community kitchen and café will be at the heart of the centre, overlooking and spilling out onto a courtyard garden. New community training and therapy rooms are positioned around the heart of the new centre, while most of the existing building will be converted to a 96 place full day care nursery, with associated crèche and drop in activities. The project was completed in summer 2006 and is funded by the Sure Start local programme and the Children’s centre.

http://www.cazenove-architects.co.uk/anntayler/atcc1_cy.htm

Ann Tayler Childrens Centre

62

63

This hub is delivered as part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Legacy Program Community Sports Hubs. Community Sport Hubs (CSHs) bring local people together and provide a home for local clubs and sport organisations. They are based in local facilities like sport centres, community centres, club pavilions, the natural environment and schools.

sportscotland is working with all 32 local authorities across Scotland to ensure at least 150 CSHs are in place by 2016, with at least 50% based in schools.

The CSH is a school-based hub, set within Armadale Academy. The school was selected as a CSH location because of its facilities and its ethos of being involved in sport. Those involved were keen to maximise the use of the facilities within the school. The CSH is managed by a full time Hub Officer.http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/media/1363935/csh-evaluation-profiles-final.pdf

Armadale Community Sport Hub

This hub is delivered as part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games Legacy Program Community Sports Hubs. A new facility called Aviemore Primary School and Community Centre opened in Aviemore in August 2012. It incorporates a range of services including a primary school, community library, sports halls and a gym. It is owned by Highland Council and run by High Life Highland (HLH) - an arms length organisation of the Council.

The Aviemore CSH was established around the same time as the community centre opened, and uses the new facility as a physical base. It is an area-based CSH reputed for its unique natural environment and wide range of outdoor sports. It has formed strong partnerships with both outdoor and indoor community sport clubs, with the aim of improving the quality of and access to sport in the community.http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/media/1363935/csh-evaluation-profiles-final.pdf

Aviemore Primary School and Community Centre

Red de Innovación y Aprendizaje, Mexico

114 | CELE | Designing for Education

© OECD 2011

Red de Innovación y Aprendizaje Location | ESTADO DE MÉxICO, MExICO

A

B

Reception module1 Cafeteria module2 Lobby3 Rack module4 Toilets5 Open access 6 computersClassroom 7

12

3

45

5

6

7

7 7

The Red de Innovación y Aprendizaje (RIA) is a network of centres that offers low-income communities access to computers, the internet and education. Each centre acts as a community hub, helping people become part of the digitally connected world, and brings together schools, businesses and local government. Partnerships are made with local schools to create courses that supplement their curriculum. Businesses can use the centres to host conferences and to train their employees.

During the three phases of the initiative, 70 centres have been opened in 28 municipalities in the State of Mexico. The project has received support from the State of Mexico and the National Council of Science and Technology. A typical centre has a reception area, four classrooms and an auditorium. Each centre caters for around 6000 registered users of all ages.

http://edfacilitiesinvestment-db.org/facilities/38

This multi-functional building accommodates a primary school, a playroom for young children, community support services, a gymnasium and a health centre. In addition, there are nine residential flats as well as accommodation and facilities for people with mental health problems requiring permanent care.

The school comprises five single-storey classroom blocks, with a separate hall, library and administration block. The current set-up allows a total enrolment of 260 students, but there is room on the site for additional teaching blocks that will take the capacity to 520.

The school hall and library are positioned around an outdoor central courtyard, which has become the heart of the school and is a favourite area for children to meet and play. http://edfacilitiesinvestment-db.org/facilities/6

MFA & GGZ Zeeheldenbuurt, Switzerland

Houthavens, Amsterdam, was a sparsely populated industrial area which is set for substantial new residential developments over the next 15 years. There is a rapidly growing demand for secondary education, but given the changing demographics of the area, it is difficult to forecast long-term demand. This facility has therefore been designed as a temporary school, while more permanent schools are being planned. Although the school looks and feels like a traditional building, it is a modular structure. This is not visible, however, given the innovative design of the façade. The modular construction provides flexibility and makes the entire school recyclable. It would be relatively easy to reconfigure the structure and rebuild it in a different form. More significantly, it is fully transportable. In the future this structure could be moved to another location in the city and reassembled as a school or office accommodation.

http://edfacilitiesinvestment-db.org/facilities/52

Het 4e Gymnasium

Secondary level | 183

© OECD 2011

Het 4e GymnasiumLOCATION | AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

ARCHITECTS: HVDN architecten

CLIENT: Stadsdeel Westerpark Amsterdam and Esprit Scholen

TYPE OF SCHOOTT L: Lower and upper secondary

NUMBER OF STUDENTS: 535

TYPE OF PROJECT: TT New school

GROSS SURFACE AREA: 4 160m2

YEAR OF COMPLETION: 2008

CONTEXT: City

Until the mid-2000s Houthavens, the area ofAmsterdam where this new school is located,was a sparsely populated industrial area. Itstarted to change when it became the site oftemporary student housing. Now there aregrowing numbers of artists’ workshopsand restaurants, and it is set for substantialnew residential developments over the next15 years.

There is a rapidly growing demand forsecondary education, but given the quicklychanging demographics of the area, it isdifficult to forecast long-term demand. Thisfacility has therefore been designed asa temporary school, which can provide agood educational environment while more permanent schools are being planned.

Modular constructionAlthough the school looks and feels like a traditional building, it is a modular structure.This is not visible, however, given the

innovative design of the façade. Rather thanoffering a drab uniform exterior, the buildingdisplays the technical and aesthetic qualitiesand level of finishing of a permanent structure.

Several design features make this possible.The joints between the modular units arehidden or disguised. On the external walls, thetimber sections, built from narrow horizontalplanks, hide the real joints. On the groundfloor and in the courtyard, the joints areA: The main entrance.

A

The Hub Singapore

Pre-primary and primary levels | 145

© OECD 2011

MFA & GGZ ZeeheldenbuurtLOCATION | TILBURG, NETHERLANDS

ARCHITECTS: atelier PRO architekten bv (Dorte Kristensen, LisettePlouvier and Pascale Leistra)

CLIENT: Gemeente Tilburg & TIWOS (Tilburgse Woonstichting)

TYPE OF SCHOOTT L: Pre-primary and primary

NUMBER OF STUDENTS: 200

TYPE OF PROJECT: TT New community centre

GROSS SURFACE AREA: 4 500m2

YEAR OF COMPLETION: 2009

CONTEXT: City

This multi-functional building accommodates a primary school, a playroom for young children, community support services, a gymnasium and a health centre. In addition, there are nineresidential flats as well as accommodation and facilities for people with mental healthproblems requiring permanent care.

Meeting the needs of all usersThe building needs to serve a wide range of users and meet the disparate needs of the school, the health centre and community facilities. The different user groups, includingthe school and a branch of the NetherlandsMental Health Care Association (GGZ), were consulted extensively at the planning stage. Numerous meetings were held to discuss various aspects, ranging from the provision of multipurpose rooms and issues of building management to the choice of colours and materials. This helped to achieve a design that met with everyone’s approval.

A: The foyer and meeting area located at the heart of the building.

B: The main entrance. The primary school occupies part of the ground and first floors running down the right-hand side of the building.

A

B

The Hub Singapore is a community of nearly 500 like-minded people with coworking space, curated events, learning opportunities, mentors, and a collaborative platform to source co-founders, conspirators, partnerships and friends. While not an incubator, the Hub combines the best of an accelerator, an innovation lab, a membership club, a collaborative working environment, a buzzing café, and the comforts of home.

Members enjoy working at the intersection of fields, are collaborative, and they work for purpose. They may be entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, techies, impact investors, creatives, students, policy makers, professionals and many more-- anyone making a solution for a better world.

http://singapore.impacthub.net/about/

64

65

The WV Hub is a statewide, non-profit organisation that helps communities come together to set goals for their future and connects them to the rich network of resources they need to meet those goals. Within the network there are resources for:

⁄ Convening community conversations ⁄ Training community leaders ⁄ Recruiting volunteers ⁄ Building infrastructure ⁄ Reclaiming abandoned buildings ⁄ Sustaining healthy food production ⁄ Teaching political action ⁄ Developing small businesses ⁄ Adopting healthy lifestyles ⁄ Finding funding for projects ⁄ Fostering community life

http://wvhub.org/

The Hub West Virginia

A $60 million site boasting some of Australia’s most sophisticated, high-tech digital facilities, the Creative Industries Precinct at QUT’s Kelvin Grove campus is an incubator for the next generation of ground-breaking ideas, emerging and experimental artists and designers, and creative enterprise.

The Precinct provides a unique opportunity to easily connect and collaborate with partners from government and industry to create new work, develop new ideas and grow the creative industries sector in Queensland and Australia.

Located on the western fringe of Brisbane’s Central Business District, the Precinct is part of the newly established Kelvin Grove Urban Villagehttp://www.ciprecinct.qut.edu.au/

Creative Industries Precinct and Kelvin Grove Urban Village Tootagarook Community House

Family Life began providing family support services since 1970. Since then it has strived to be a centre of research, knowledge and innovation, delivering measurable social change and impact. They offer counselling, mediation, mental health services, support and community educational services, outreach to homes, case coordination and advocacy.

As they continued to grow and diversify their services, Family Life soon realised that developing their asset base through property ownership was crucial to strengthening the organisation’s future. The path towards asset ownership for Family Life was a mixture of community and philanthropic donations, income earning through enterprises, as well as using Foresters Community Finance to raise the funds to purchase a community based asset. http://foresters.org.au/case-studies/family-life-cas-104

http://familylife.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FamilyLife_AR2013_Web_SinglePages2.pdf

In May 2011, the Government of Alberta announced it was investing in 35 new school projects. As part of this investment, a bundle of 12 new schools, will be built using a public-private partnership (P3) approach. This P3 approach will deliver the schools up to two years earlier than through traditional methods and will save Alberta taxpayers about $43 million. The project includes the design, build, finance and 30-year maintenance of the new schools, which are scheduled to be completed in June 2014 and ready to open for the 2014/2015 school year. http://www.abcschools.ca/

In recent years the P3 model has attracted communty dissent in Alberta, and the latest round of schools proposed to be built under a P3 model attracted only one bidder.http://www.calgaryherald.com/Province+model+schools+called+mess/9527587/story.html

Alberta P3 SchoolsBroadmeadow Schools Regeneration

Hume Central Secondary College is a co-educational public government school in the northern suburb of Broadmeadows, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Hume Central Secondary College was established with the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project. Three secondary colleges in the area merged to create Hume Central Secondary College: Hillcrest Secondary College, Broadmeadows Secondary College and Erinbank Secondary College. The two new junior campuses are now referred to as Dimboola Road Campus and Blair Street Campus. The Senior Town Park Campus was completed in 2011.

https://oppspaces.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/bsrp-journey-so-far_.pdf

Caboolture Hub

The Caboolture Hub is the Moreton Bay Region’s destination for learning, business and imagination.

The $25 million Moreton Bay Regional Council facility has transformed the Caboolture CBD into a thriving civic precinct with modern community and cultural facilities, cafe dining and business and learning opportunities.

The state-of-the-art Caboolture Hub boasts 3,000 square metres of library space, and a further 2,000 square metres dedicated to a learning centre, regional art gallery as well as business seminar, training and meeting spaces making it the largest facility of its kind in the Moreton Bay Region.

https://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/caboolture-hub/

66

67

Summary of existing Case Study research

A2

Project Name Description Rationale Governance Notes

Queensland Partnerships

North Lakes State College

In 2006 North Lakes State College established a facilitation agreement with the Pine Rivers Shire Council, for the shared use of the Town Library, Sports Hall, ovals and Town Common.

The growth in the North Lakes area has meant that the library has been outgrown by the number of users, also the school has grown beyond expectations with little room for additional infrastructure expansion, resulting in the need for both the school and the council to have exclusive use of an entire building.

The previous Pine Rivers Shire Council entered into a multi-faceted arrangement with the Department of Education and Training and the Developer for the development of the Foundation Building, Leisure Centre (including the swimming pool) Town Common and Sports Oval at North Lakes.

The Facilitation Agreement generally details how much Council and DET are contributing to the construction, the make-up of the committee and community access hours.

Calamvale Community College

The shared facilities include a 3 court sports stadium, and sports ovals with night lighting.

The vision was to provide the Calamvale community with sporting facilities, while also providing the school with a facility which is appropriate in size for the number of students in the school.

The Links Committee includes Brisbane City Council, the local councillor, sporting group representatives and the school.

Brisbane City Council maintains the ovals, and may sometimes wish to undertake maintenance at times inconvenient for the school.

Forest Lake State High School

Forest Lake SHS is in partnership with St John’s College to share 50:50 the ownership and operation of a campus resource centre consisting of a resource centre (library), 8 classrooms, a staffroom, a number of small group areas and a storeroom.

The partnership has been successful operationally due to the commitment of the principals.

From an operational perspective, the partnership is successful. From a management and supervisory perspective the partnership is less than optimal.

All aspects of operation are shared equally.

Varsity College The Foundation Principal of Varsity College negotiated an agreement with Gold Coast City Council to construct a sports hall and performing arts centre on council land.

The partnership was established to conserve land use in a town centre. The school was established as an initiative which situated the secondary school within the town centre, leading to a requirement to reduce the school footprint as much as possible.

The sports hall and performing arts centre are hired to other users by the school. The land is leased to the school for $1 per year for 30 years.

The Gold Coast City Council maintains the sports field. All hire fees from the Hall and Performing Arts are returned to the school to cover ongoing maintenance. The school has benefited from additional funding provided by Gold Coast City Council due to the relationship which was established.

Upper Coomera State College

At the time of opening in 2003, Upper Coomera State College (UCSC) was one of the very few community facilities in the very fast growing Gold Coast Northern Corridor.

The broader aim was to provide the community with access to as many facilities and resources as possible to build a well-educated, healthy and supported community.

A Joint Shared Use Agreement for the use of the Performing Arts Centre was developed and provides an agreement for funds raised through community use for ongoing maintenance and facility upgrades.

The initial funding GCCC commitment was for the funds needed to extend the facility from the standard DET provision of 250 seating capacity to the 450 seating with the theatre level provision of lighting, audio, foyer and back of house facilities.

The following case studies are extracted from:

‘Focus on Schools as Community Hubs: A Study of Shared Infrastructure partnerships’ Department of Education and Training in 2011.

68

69

Project Name Description Rationale Governance Notes

Other examples of Australian schools working together

Caroline Springs The intent of the project was to establish a community which would interact at all levels, with the schools as the community hub.

The Mayor of Melton City Council worked with the developer from the beginning to establish a partnership that would be attractive to the community. The Council continues to be involved, including hiring a Youth Officer to operate programs after school.

The partners involved are Melton Shire Council, Caroline Springs College, and Mowbray College. Joint use of the library, sports stadium and sports fields provide a standard of facility which would not usually be available to a school.

All partners have a process for contributing funds and selecting resources.

St Charles Borremeo Catholic School and Serpell Community School

The joint location of St Charles Borremeo Catholic School and Serpell Community School were intended to provide a higher quality of infrastructure whilst saving costs, including ongoing maintenance and upgrades.

The school consisted of a shared administration block owned and operated by the two schools, a shared staffroom, shared library, canteen and hall. The Council provided ovals and tennis courts. There was also a joint Outside School Hours Care facility with a joint management committee.

The parties involved in the Agreement under the Serpell Joint Schools Act 1981 are: the Minister for Education; the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne and the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Doncaster and Templestowe and Serpell Community Project Pty.

The funding arrangements are set out in the Serpell Joint Schools Act 1981.

International Partnerships

Rosa Parks School, San Francisco

The development of Columbia mixes new housing – public housing, workforce rentals, senior rentals and homes for sale. The development provides recreational and lifelong learning opportunities.

The existing school was unable to cater for the increased student numbers, therefore Rosa Parks School was established. A unique opportunity was envisioned: a “Community Campus”.

Partners were found in the Boys and Girls Club of Portland, and the City of Portland Parks and Recreation, with promised access to the recreational centre. The partners have agreed upon a ‘compact’ governing the joint use of planned facilities. This includes a framework that enables the partners to make effective and efficient use of the facilities.

The partners worked together to find a cost-effective use of public and private funds in a type of non-traditional funding.

Neptune Community School, Neptune, New Jersey

Use of school rehabilitation and construction as a centrepiece for community revitalisation. The community requested that the school incorporate social services programs and amenities.

The school offers state-of-the-art facilities for up to 700 primary students. A middle school annexe will be built on a nearby site.

The New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation coordinates governance in the first phase.

The New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation funds and manages the construction of the Neptune Community Centre. The school is entirely financed by state funds.

Canada Humberwood Downs Junior Middle Academy

To provide a community hub which will encourage use by all.

Collaboration with community/social agencies : Macaulay Child Development Centre, Punjabi Community

At the landmark $23M Humberwood Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, four owners (the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Toronto District School Board, Toronto Parks and Recreation Services and the Toronto Public Library Board) share one integrated, mixed-use facility as business partners.

The City of Toronto contributed the land and three Ontario ministries provided capital funding from an inter-ministerial pool of funds. Even the design team was a joint venture between two architectural firms.

references and resources

A3

70

71

Building Better Health, Heart of Hounslow Case Study, viewed 8 January 2015, <http://www.buildingbetterhealth.co.uk/project/3/>.

Clandfield, D & Martell, G (eds.) 2010, ‘The School as Community Hub: Beyond Education’s Iron Cage’, Our Schools/ Our Selves Special Issue, vol 19, no.4, Issue 100, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/ourselves/docs/OSOS_Summer10_Preview.pdf>. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment 2008, Sure Start children’s centres: A post-occupancy evaluation, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London, viewed 5 January 2015, <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/sure-start-childrens-centres.pdf>. Community Health Partnerships, 2010, West London LIFT - Heart of Hounslow Officially Opened as Polyclinic by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health Services, press release, 1 March, Community Health Partnerships, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://www.communityhealthpartnerships.co.uk/article/west-london-lift-heart-of-hounslow-officially-opened-as-polyclinic-by-parliamentary-under-secretary-of-state-for-health-services>. Community Health Partnerships, The impact of the Local Improvement Finance Trust Programme, NHS Department of Health, London, viewed 8 January 2015 <http://www.communityhealthpartnerships.co.uk/the-impact-of-the-local-improvement-finance-trust-programme>.

Department for Education and Child Development 2013, Schools as Community Hubs Discussion paper: To build common understanding and practice about the development of schools as community hubs in South Australia, Government of South Australia, viewed 15 December 2105, <http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/aboutdept/pages/Aboutdept/schoolhubs>. Department of Education, Community Use of School Premises: A Guidance Toolkit for Schools, Northern Ireland, viewed 5 January 2015, <http://www.deni.gov.uk/community_use_of_school_premises_-_a_guidance_toolkit_for_schools_english.pdf>. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2010, The Journey So Far: A Reflection of the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project 2006-2009, State Government of Victoria, viewed 15 January 2015, <https://oppspaces.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/bsrp-journey-so-far_.pdf> Deptford Lounge, Strengthening Links with the Community, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://deptfordlounge.org.uk/about>. Foresters Community Finance, Case Studies, viewed 18 December 2015, <http://foresters.org.au/case-studies>.Fulcrum Group, Public Private Partnership and a modern NHS: Case Study, viewed 8 January 2015, < http://www.fulcrumgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FulcrumCaseStudy-PublicPrivatePartnershipsySinglePages.pdf>. House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts 2006, NHS Local Improvement Finance Trusts, Forty–seventh Report of Session 2005–06, The Stationery Office Limited, London, viewed 6 January 2015, <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmpubacc/562/562.pdf>.

references and resources

Hub South East Scotland Territory, Annual Report 2013-2014, Hub South East Scotland, Scotland, viewed 15 December 2014, <http://www.hubsoutheastscotland.co.uk/assets/h/u/hub-south-east_2014_electronicfinalforweb.pdf>. Hub South East Scotland Territory, Strategic Delivery Plan 2014-2018, Hub South East Scotland, Scotland, viewed 15 December 2014, < http://www.hubsoutheastscotland.co.uk/assets/t/e/territory-strategy-plan_4-june_final.pdf>. Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Public Works, Parliament NSW, 2004, Inquiry into the joint use and co-location of public buildings, Report No. 53/04, New South Wales, viewed 18 December 2014, <http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/3d0b64778b3d0ab7ca256f64000cf48d/$FILE/Final Committee Report 2008 December 2004 - Inquiry into the Joint Use and Co-location of Public Buildings.pdf>. Matichuk, A 2010, Flexible and alternative approaches to providing school infrastructure in Alberta, Canada, OECD, viewed 15 January 2015, http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/44703389.pdf. McShane, I 2012, ‘Learning to share: Australia’s ‘building the education revolution’ and shared schools’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 105-119, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2012.658766>.

72

McShane, I 2006, ‘Community facilities, community building and local government – an Australian perspective’, Facilities, vol. 24, no. 7/8 pp. 269 – 279, viewed 14 December 2014, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770610666125>. Moore, T, McDonald, M & Sanjeevan, S 2012, Primary Schools as Community Hubs: A review of the Literature, Royal Children’s Hospital Centre for Community Child Health & Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, viewed 18 December 2014 <http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/Schools_as_Community_Hubs_Lit_Review.pdf>. NHS Lothian 2011, Wester Hailes Health Living Centre Moving Closer, press release, 10 November, NHS Lothian, Scotland, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/MediaCentre/PressReleases/2011/PagesWesterHailesHealthyLivingCentreMovesCloser.aspx> NHS Lothian 2009, Wester Hailes Healthy Living Centre Business Case, NHS Lothian, Scotland, viewed 8 January 2015, <http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/Community/EdinburghCHP/HealthyLivingCentre/Documents/WHHLC-BusinessCase.pdf>. ODS Consulting 2014, Community Sport Hub Evaluation, sportscotland, Scotland, viewed 6 January 2015, <http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/media/1374306/csh-evaluation-overview-report-final.pdf>. ODS Consulting 2014, Community Sport Hub Evaluation: CSH Profiles, sportscotland, Scotland, viewed 6 January 2015, <http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/media/1374306/csh-evaluation-overview-report-final.pdf>

OECD 2011, Designing for Education: Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities 2011, OECD Publishing, viewed 15 December 2014, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112308-en>. Pollard Thomas Edwards, Tidemill Academy and Deptford Lounge, viewed 15 December 2014, <http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/tidemill-academy-and-deptford-lounge>. Queensland Health 2014, The Health of Queenslanders 2014: Fifth report of the Chief Health Officer Queensland, Queensland Government, Brisbane, viewed 16 December 2014, <www.health.qld.gov.au/CHO_report>. Rosenblatt, T, Cheshire, L & Lawrence, G 2009, ‘Social Interaction and Sense of Community in a Master Planned Community’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 26, no.2, pp.122- 142, viewed 14 December 2014, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036090701862484> School Resources Division and Strategic Policy and Planning Division 2005, Schools as Community Facilities: Policy Framework and Guidelines, Department of Education & Training, Melbourne, viewed 5 January 2015, <http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/facility/schools/sacf/index.htm>. Scottish Government 2009, Building Better Schools: Investing in Scotland’s Future, Scottish Government, Edinburgh, viewed 9 January 2015, <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/285201/0086644.pdf>. Scottish Government, Raploch Community Campus Case Study, viewed 9 January 2015, <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/Buildings/CaseStudies/Stirling/raplochcommunitycampus>

Slough Borough Council 2012, Creating the Slough Local Asset Backed Vehicle (LABV) Part 1 Key Decision, Cabinet Report 19 September 2012, Slough Borough Council, viewed 12 January 2015, <http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s25742/LABV%20report%20Part%20I.pdf>. The State of Queensland Department of Infrastructure 2007, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026: Implementation Guideline No. 5—Social Infrastructure Planning, Queensland Government, Brisbane, viewed 15 December 2014, <http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/ImplementationGuideline5.pdf>. The State of Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2009, South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, viewed 19 December 2014 <http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/seq/regional-plan-2009/seq-regional-plan-2009.pdf>. Thompson, B 2012, Local Asset Backed Vehicles: A success story or unproven concept?, RICS, London, viewed 16 December 2014, <http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/guides-advice/local-asset-backed-vehicles>. Valentine, K, Katz, I & Griffiths, M 2007, Early Childhood Services: Models of Integration and Collaboration, Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, University of New South Wales, viewed 15 December 2014, <https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/SPRCFile/5_Report_ARACY_EarlyChildhood.pdf>. Winch, G, Onishi, M & Schmidt, S (eds.) 2012, Taking Stock of PPP and PFI Around the World, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, London, viewed 15 January 2015, <http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-technical/public-sector/rr-126-001.pdf>.

73

Description - LABV & LIFt

A4

74

overview - Local Asset Backed Vehicle (LABV) [UK]

What is a Local Asset Backed Vehicle?Local asset backed vehicles (LABVs) are being increasingly used to combine private sector finance and skills with public sector real estate as a means of driving development and investment. In the basic LABV model, a public sector body will create a corporate entity with a private sector partner. The public body transfers real estate to this entity, and the private sector partner matches the value of those assets with cash. These investments form the equivalent of the parties’ ‘equity’ in the LABV.

In this way, the vehicle is endowed with both land and cash. It can invest the cash in a way that enhances the value of the land - for example by obtaining planning permission, providing infrastructure or carrying out development works. Profits will then be shared between the public and private sector partners, enabling the public sector body to either recycle funds into the LABV or use the money for other purposes.

When are LABVs appropriate?The LABV model can be used where a public sector body holds a significant asset that it wants to develop over the medium term (say 15 years), while influencing what is delivered in terms of quality, infrastructure and timing. It can also enhance the value of the public sector body’s investment portfolio.

Private sector companies find the model attractive because, among other things, it: ⁄ provides an opportunity to invest equity in a way

which is backed up by commitments and promises from the public sector;

⁄ offers a significant pipeline of opportunities over a period of years;

⁄ generates flexibility.

Public sector bodies approve because this allows them to: ⁄ regenerate areas while using the land as equity; ⁄ influence a living business in the form of the LABV; ⁄ share in any returns generated by the LABV pro rata

to their equity stake.

requirements for deliveryThe LABV model does involve risk, but it can be adapted to accommodate the level of risk acceptable to the public sector body.

Investment LABV: this can be used where a site requires significant investment to make it marketable - for example where major infrastructure, remediation or substantial planning input is required - but otherwise the opportunity is viable. A private sector investment partner will fund this requirement. Once the works have been carried out and the value of the site enhanced, the LABV will sell it or parts of it on the open market. The increase in value will be distributed to the partners.

In this model the risk adopted by the LABV is relatively low, but the amount of profit will be fairly modest.

Once the LABV is established it will employ professionals, possibly including a construction team, to help it achieve its aims. The contracts for these will be tendered on the open market. The private sector partner will only be concerned with investment issues.

Value-capture LABV: in this model, the LABV will act as the developer as well as ensuring that sites are ready for development. It will carry out infrastructure works, obtain planning permission and undertake any necessary remediation of the site.

This type of LABV provides greater scope for profit, but the risks will be higher. The development expertise of the public sector partner - particularly its development skills in bringing sites forward - will need to be harnessed in addition to its financial investment to enable the LABV to carry out its activities. However, it will often tender the construction supply chain and sites that are immediately available on the open market.Integrated delivery LABV: this will deliver most if not all of the required development, and so carries the greatest risk – and the greatest scope for profit. The construction supply chain is procured before the LABV is established. The vehicle potentially carries the risk for land assets, planning, infrastructure, some or all construction and sales. Source: http://www.out-law.com/topics/property/structured-real-estate/local-asset-backed-vehicles/

75

overview - Local Improvement Finance trust (LIFt) [UK]What exactly is LIFt? ⁄ LIFt stands for Local Improvement Finance trust.

⁄ A local LIFt company builds and refurbishes primary care premises, which it owns.

⁄ It rents accommodation to primary Care trusts and gps (as well as other parties such as chemists, optician and dentists) on a lease basis.

How are LIFt companies set up? ⁄ At local level, a LIFt company is a public private

partnership (ppp). It is set up as a limited company with the local NHS (potentially including individual practitioners), Community Health partnerships (CHp) and the private sector as shareholders.

⁄ CHp is a limited company wholly owned by the Department of Health. CHp invests money in LIFt and also helps attract additional private funding.

⁄ As a shareholder, the local NHS is best placed to direct investment to the areas of greatest need.

Why as a company (limited by share capital)? ⁄ A company is relatively simple and efficient way to

structure a public private partnership.

⁄ It offers the potential for gps or groups of gps to become part-owners.

⁄ the NHS (and gps) has the key role in determining where investments are made (and will share in any profits - which it can then reinvest in healthcare).

⁄ the Department can sell its shares. this is not a long-term investment - it is a catalyst for change.

Why was the LIFT initiative started? ⁄ to help address under- investment in NHS primary

care premises.

⁄ private sector investment was piecemeal and not concentrated in the areas of greatest need (particularly in the inner-cities).

⁄ A large number of current premises are too small

and cramped to provide modern primary care.

What about traditional public capital? ⁄ public capital funding may be available in areas

where LIFt does not operate.

⁄ In addition, improvement grants, cost rent, notional rent and other primary Medical Services mechanisms for small scale redevelopment and

improvements continue to be available.

What are the additional benefits of the LIFT approach? ⁄ Flexibility: LIFt offers gps flexible lease

arrangements (elsewhere, gps are often tied into long leases). this, and the quality of the facilities provided under LIFt, should help attract more gps to work in inner city areas.

⁄ Scale and speed: LIFts help deliver a significant number of new premises in a short period of time.

⁄ Integration of services : patients expect to find as many of the services they need in one place as possible. LIFts actively seek to co-locate additional services and facilities (for example space can be used by a range of related health care professionals as well as social services).

⁄ Common approach: CHp has established a common approach that LIFt schemes across the country can adopt. Consequently, individual gp practices or local teams do not have to develop an approach and

all the documentation for each scheme.

Who runs local LIFts? ⁄ At a local level, the Strategic partnering Board,

comprising private sector partners, local NHS nominees and CHp will work together to agree and develop investment programmes.

Is this simply ‘privatising the NHS’? ⁄ No. LIFt is an additional ppp to provide primary

care facilities to gps and other primary care professionals, (chemists, opticians, dentists, etc) primary care premises are provided under a range of ownership models. Most are privately owned by individual gps (63%), some are rented from private sector landlords (21%), and the remainder are provided by the NHS (16%) in health centres.

What is Community Health partnerships? ⁄ Community Health partnerships (CHp) is 100%

owned by the Department of Health but is run as an independent company.

⁄ CHp provides advice and support to pCts trying to establish LIFt companies, and to pCts and LIFt Companies in developing new facilities.

⁄ Alongside the local NHS and the private sector partner, CHp is a shareholder in every LIFt Company.

Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/NHSprocurement/Publicprivatepartnership/NHSLIFT/DH_4076707

Quality Information:60338530

P:\603X\60338530

Alastair Leighton, Associate Director, DP+E

Alastair Leighton, Dylan Porter, Megan McCormack

MG/AL (Peer Review - Community Hubs Forum)

V11 Final

09.03.15

Project Reference:

File Location:

Project Director:

Completed by:

Checked by:

Issue:

Date:

76

Community Hubs International Research report · 2017. 10. 27. · 2 Scope ⁄dentify examples of...

Documents

Transcript of Community Hubs International Research report · 2017. 10. 27. · 2 Scope ⁄dentify examples of...