PFI: Failing our Future?

Sir Stuart Lipton, CABE chair (1999 - 2004), talks about the upshots of good design and the drawbacks of shortcomings.

Is PFI failing the future?

At present PFI is largely failing to deliver the quality of public building that staff, users, visitors and the wider public deserve.

Public sector workers are asked to meet ever-increasing demands for greater productivity and efficiency. They need buildings that are well designed and fit for purpose. I personally know the benefits of creating good working conditions through relationships with UCATT and T&G. We proved that good environment is good for everyone.

And yet, as you can see from these examples, PFI projects often result in:

• Schools that would look more at home on an out of town business park
• Cluttered classrooms with little natural light
• Hospitals with dark, crowded and confusing corridors

But it doesn't have to be this way. Public buildings can and should be well designed, and by design I don't just mean the external architecture. I mean the effectiveness and the efficiency of the whole building as well as it appearance and its enjoyment factor.

Here is the outside of an Ear, Nose and Throat hospital and the inside of a general hospital.

Unfortunately these examples are abroad, in Austria and Sweden.

So why is PFI failing to deliver?

Part of the problem lies with the private sector - PFI contractors often seek to maximise financial return rather than quality of public service. On one hand there isn't enough innovation. Innovation is risk and risk should equal better product. On the other building clients need to be better informed and smart, typically they are not.

The lifetime costs of a building are represented by a simple formula - for every £1 spent on construction, £5 is likely to be spent on maintenance and £200 on staffing costs.

If PFI is to work for staff then we need to find a way to make the private sector care about the 200 as well as the 5 and the 1. Personnel costs are 60/80% of total costs. The PFI contractor often has no interest in making the building more efficient for staff, which would allow them to do their jobs more efficiently.

The public client is also partly responsible. All too often they fail to demand the necessary design quality, staff and users suffer as a result.

If you take care to define what you want from a building the end product will show that care. All too often the brief doesn't define what's needed. Care doesn't necessarily cost more and good design if anything should cost less. So there is no reason why PFI shouldn't succeed.

Does design really matter? Of course it does.

Nottingham University compared three health projects before and after they were redesigned and found clear benefits to patient health and the efficiency of medical resourcing due to good design.

New wards were perceived by patients and staff as more pleasant, relaxing and welcoming. Lower pulse rates. Lower blood pressure readings. Shorter post-operative stays. Less use of drugs. All proved that good environment works.

A study by PWC for the Education Department found that investment in school buildings had the strongest influence on staff morale, pupil motivation and effective learning time. We know that good design in schools increases educational standards and reduces truancy and vandalism.

Design is one of the most significant factors in staff recruitment and retention. UNISON's 'Work Life Balance' campaign about healthy rest in order to work at your best is absolutely correct.

In October CABE are publishing a joint report with OGC (part of the Treasury). This will pressure all levels of government to improve the quality of all new public buildings.

So is PFI failing our future? At the moment the majority of PFI buildings are poorly designed and will fail to meet the changing demands of this and future generations.

Government has embarked on the largest public building programme for a generation. £43 billion worth.

There is a danger that in the push to meet delivery targets before the next election design quality will be compromised.

PFI contracts are getting bigger and, for example, it just isn't possible for one contractor to control a group of architects to redesign 50 schools at once. Timescales for design and delivery are getting shorter and shorter. Something has to give, and that something is 'quality'.

But it is the staff, your members, who will have to work in these new buildings and if they are not improved they will suffer.

It doesn't have to be this way. When representing members involved in building projects unions must:

• Ensure that the public sector client sets and controls the brief.
• Demand adequate staff and user consultation.
• Ensure that staff responsible for managing building projects receive necessary advice and training.

We all must learn from mistakes and best practice. We need to benchmark costs and project quality so we understand what they should really cost and how they should really work.

I understand your antipathy to PFI, but don't hide behind it by failing to engage with the projects that are being built right now. Buildings that will either enhance your member's lives or make their jobs miserable. And don't forget that on average Government contracts over ran on cost and time by 60%, and that was before PFI.

It is up to you, and your members to challenge government and the private sector and demand the highest quality working environments. PFI can succeed, but a lot more hard work is needed to ensure quality delivery.

It is only then that we will get the functional, sustainable and beautiful public buildings that we all deserve.