Conclusion 4

Short–term funding for property maintenance is hindering longer–term planning. Departments typically bid for property maintenance funding on a yearly basis. This short–term funding cycle can be inefficient as it hinders departments’ ability to plan longer–term maintenance works. The contracting phase may take a long time and this can mean that property maintenance works may, for example, be concentrated close to the year end to avoid losing funding, despite likely less favourable weather conditions. HM Treasury is responsible for assessing departments’ bids for maintenance funding. The quality of these bids is variable and there is little clarity on whether departments consider alternatives to maintenance, such as whether moving to a new building would be better value for money in the long–term. The OGP is supporting departments through provision of guidance and tools on preparing maintenance bids, and supports HM Treasury with assessing the bids. Officials in the OGP also regularly engage with departments and ALBs on disposals. We specifically raised concerns about the delays in the disposal of the properties acquired 6 for the abandoned High Speed 2 extension. Not all departments and ALBs make use of what the OGP offers and the OGP does not currently mandate the use of any of its tools. The government has set out plans for longer– term, five–year, capital funding cycles, which should help departments’ plan better. recommendation a. The Cabinet Office should, in light of Spending Review 2025 and no later than October 2025, write to the Committee to update it on what has changed to support the longer–term planning of property maintenance. b. HM Treasury should mandate that business cases for maintenance funding consider the consequences of disposal and building new in addition to maintaining existing properties.