Estate Strategy 2011–2015 - University of Portsmouth

Estate Strategy
2011–2015

Document title
Estate Strategy
2011–2015
Document author and department Responsible person and department
Andrew Cardy,
Director of Estates
Approving body
Professor John Turner,
Pro Vice-Chancellor,
Directorate
Date of approval
Board of Governors 16 June 2010, Min 80.2
Review date Edition no. ID code
June 2015
EITHER
For public access online (internet)?
Tick as appropriate
4 54
OR
For staff access only (intranet)?
Tick as appropriate
Yes
3
Yes
For public access on request copy
to be mailed
Tick as appropriate
Password protected
Tick as appropriate
Yes
3
No Yes No
3
External queries relating to the document to be referred in the first instance to the University Secretary:
telephone +44 (0)23 9284 3195 or email university.secretary@port.ac.uk

Contents
Page no.
1. Introduction and overview
1.1 Introduction and history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Planning and future purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Estate data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5 Space utilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Running costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7 Functional suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Out-turn from the 2006–2010 Estate Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Overview of requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Planning the future estate
5.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2 Overview of future development opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3 Planning studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4 Other development opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5 Future needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6 Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Estate maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Health and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Environmental management
8.1 Policy and legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2 Carbon reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.3 Sustainable construction and refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Funding the Estate Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix 1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix 2 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix 3 Out-turn from the 2006–2010 Estate Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 3

1. Introduction and overview
1.1 Introduction and history
The University Strategic Plan 2007–2012 identifies
four headline aims:
a) To give an excellent student experience focused
on knowledge and skills essential for roles in the
global workforce.
b) To raise aspirations and to promote access to the
University.
c) To promote the discovery, development and
application of knowledge through high quality
research.
d) To contribute to sustainable economic, social,
cultural and community regeneration and
development.
The aim of this Estate Strategy is to facilitate delivery
of these Aims. Providing excellent buildings (and
removing the remaining poor-quality estate) makes
a major contribution to improving the student
experience. Student recruitment benefits substantially
from the fact that our estate is accessible and of
high and improving quality. Research and knowledge
transfer also benefits from fit-for-purpose facilities.
The University has, through its own efforts,
regenerated a large part of the city (now known as
the University Quarter). The City Council recognises
this gain and is generally supportive of our planning
applications. The Portsmouth Society and others
have recognised the University’s contribution to
regenerating the city by several awards, including
the University Library (Best New Building 2007),
the Students’ Union (Best New Building 2003),
and the Portland Building (Best New Building
1997). In 2007 Ravelin Park won five awards in the
‘Portsmouth in Bloom’ competition 1 . The University
Library and Dennis Sciama buildings were awarded
a Commendation in the 2009 and 2010 Civic Trust
Awards respectively.
The last decade has seen big improvements in the
University estate. Several new buildings have been
constructed, including a major enlargement of the
University Library, a new Student Centre and the
Dennis Sciama Building. Significant additional student
residences have also been provided and extensive
refurbishment undertaken in most other buildings.
With the disposal of the former Milton Campus and
consequent re-housing of the Business School,
the University has now achieved spatial coherence
with most academic and support facilities located
on a single campus. The remaining ‘outliers’ are
the Eastney marine laboratory, a small facility at
Petersfield for environmental technology, Sigma
Research in south London, and the Langstone sports
facilities, none of which can or should be moved to
the main campus.
The co-location of almost all academic activities within
a relatively small area has improved efficiency and
has led to improved interaction between previously
dispersed parts of the University. With the exception
of the outlying sites discussed in the previous
paragraph, when planning future development the
University should aim to preserve this geographical
focus and resist any temptation to move to areas
outside the ‘University Quarter’.
The success of all this activity is demonstrated by the
assessment of estate quality derived as part of the
annual Estates Management Statistics (EMS) return
to HEFCE. Portsmouth’s estate was last assessed in
2009 and 92% of it was found to be in either category
A or B condition 2 . The remaining 8% largely consists
of the Wiltshire Building, Mercantile House and
Burrell House. Remedial action for these buildings is
proposed in the current Capital Plan.
1.2 Planning and future purchases
Student numbers are unlikely to increase significantly
during the life of this Strategy. Individual Faculties
have, however, experienced changes in recruitment
patterns, giving rise to accommodation pressures in
some areas. In many cases the solution lies in better
use of our teaching space, including greater flexibility
on the part of Faculties regarding the time and
location of teaching, rather than new building projects.
Even though the campus is fairly compact, Faculties
are often reluctant to disperse activities beyond their
‘core’ buildings.
As noted earlier the University’s strategy should be to
preserve the current geographical focus and resist any
temptation to move to areas outside the ‘University
Quarter’.
There are a number of sites within the ‘University
Quarter’ that may become available, and the
University should always be prepared to consider
acquiring sites of strategic importance within or
adjacent to the campus.
Our strategy should continue to be that we will
investigate and consider site acquisitions within the
University Quarter as possibilities arise and in the light
of University needs and finances at the time.
1.3 Aspirations
Most of our estate is in category A or B condition as
noted earlier. Our aim is to have all of our facilities in at
least the B category.
The cost of energy continues to rise and is now a very
significant part of the Estates budget. A further
1 Community and Neighbourhood Award. Best Environmental Project. Best Historic Garden. Best Newcomer. Best Environment Project for Wildlife
Conservation.
2 EMS Condition measures A to D; A = being as new, B = sound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration, C = in need of significant
refurbishment and D = unserviceable.
4 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

aspiration therefore is to ensure that all buildings
are as energy-efficient as possible. For all new
construction we will specify a ‘BREEAM 3 excellent’
rating when tendering.
We will also follow current best practice for
sustainable construction and refurbishment work.
Finally, we will continue to undertake sufficient
preventive work to avoid creating problems for the
future (‘long term maintenance’). Our strategy will
be to ensure that a sufficient and adequate annual
budget is allocated for long-term maintenance.
2. Estate data
This section looks in some detail at the estate and provides
key data upon which decisions for the future can be made.
The original data from which this information is obtained
can be found in the appendices and is taken from the
institutional return to HEFCE for the EMS relating to 2009.
2.1 Areas
2.3 Ownership
At 79% the majority of the University’s property is
held under freehold ownership. The remaining 21%
is split between leasehold (2%) and long leasehold,
exceeding 25 years (19%).
The leasehold properties are a mix of academic,
research and professional services use. Of the long
leasehold properties the majority are residential
buildings on the Guildhall Campus which provide
approximately 45% of the overall study bedrooms
managed by the University.
2.4 Condition
The condition of the estate is assessed internally
as part of the annual EMS return to HEFCE with
properties placed in one of four condition categories,
A to D (refer to paragraph 1.1, footnote 2).
The University has a rolling five year planned
preventative maintenance strategy which is further
explained in paragraph 6.
The overall University estate amounts to a little under
26 hectares. Of this total approximately 10.5 hectares
are playing fields at the Langstone Campus and just
over four hectares are parkland at Ravelin Park on the
Guildhall Campus.
The estate comprises 91 buildings of which 23 are
halls of residence providing c3,000 bedspaces. The
gross internal area of these buildings equates to
207,000m 2 with c137,000m 2 of this being academic
and support facilities and the remaining 70,000m 2
residential.
2.2 Age
The buildings which make up the University’s estate
vary in age from the mid 1800s through to buildings
still under construction with just over half of the total
area being constructed since 1980. The percentage
distribution is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 2. Condition of the estate (2009)
100%
B – 65%
A – 27%
C –
8%
D – 0%
60
80%
D
% of estate
50
40
30
20
60%
40%
20%
0%
Non-residential
Residential
C
B
A
10
0
Pre
1914
1915–
1939
1940–
1959
1960–
1979
1980
on
Figure 3. Condition of the estate by function
Figure 1. Age of buildings
3 BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is an environmental assessment method for buildings. It sets the
standard for best practice in sustainable design and has become the de facto measure used to describe a building’s environmental performance.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 5

2.5 Space utilisation
The University aims to use teaching space as
efficiently as possible, whilst offering students
convenient, reasonably spacious and fit for purpose
facilities. There is, of course, a conflict between these
two aims: raising utilisation (defined as the product
of frequency of use and room occupancy) inevitably
generates complaints of overcrowding and less than
convenient timetables. Therefore, applying too much
pressure on space utilisation can have undesirable
consequences.
During 2008–09 the University appointed SUMS 4 to
review its timetabling processes, which are of course
closely related to space utilisation. In their report
SUMS notes that ‘space utilisation [at Portsmouth] is
so good that it can be compared with the best [in the
sector]’.
These Key Performance Indicators are in line with the
University’s EMS Peer Group.
2.7 Functional suitability
The functional suitability of each building is also
assessed as part of the annual EMS return to HEFCE
using four categories from excellent through to poor.
The majority of the estate achieves an excellent
rating which, together with the results achieved
under the assessment of condition, reflect the level
of investment the University has made in the estate
and the level of importance it places on having a good
quality learning and working environment.
General teaching space is categorised as either
pooled or dedicated, pooled space being generally
managed and timetabled centrally and dedicated
space being departmentally managed and timetabled.
However, the final timetable coordination is
undertaken centrally by the Central Timetabling Unit.
Excellent
79%
Good
20%
Fair
1%
Utilisation statistics are produced each semester, the
average results for the first semester 2008–09 are
given in the table below.
Poor 0%
Table 1. Space utilisation summary
Pooled
space
Dedicated
space
Frequency Occupancy Utilisation
79% 55% 44%
68% 50% 37%
Overall occupancy rates for the halls of residence are
monitored on a regular basis and consistently report
high levels of space efficiency. Average occupancy
levels across all halls for the 2008/2009 academic
year is reported as 98.76%
2.6 Running costs
As previously mentioned, the University submits data
to the HEFCE backed EMS data collection exercise.
Key outcomes from the 2009 submission are noted
below.
• Total property costs
per m 2 (NIA) – £95
per student head – £782
• Maintenance costs
per m 2 (GIA) – £21
• Energy costs
per m 2 (GIA) – £9.74
Gas as a percentage of total energy costs – 29%
Electricity as a percentage of total energy costs –
71%
• Energy consumption
kW/h per m 2 (GIA) – 192
kW/h per student FTE – 2518
Figure 4. Functional suitability of the built estate
2.8 Summary
During the course of the outgoing Plan the University
has been able to maintain its estate at an overall
good standard and achieve space utilisation levels
in line with the best in the sector. Projects currently
underway or scheduled for this plan period should
see an end to the poorer quality estate either by
refurbishment or replacement.
3. Out-turn from the 2006–2010
Estate Strategy
The outgoing Estate Strategy set the University some key
goals in terms of improvements to the estate, many of
which have been achieved. These goals and their outcomes
are highlighted in Appendix 3.
4. Overview of requirements
Through the implementation of its previous Capital Plan and
Estate Strategy the University has made good progress
towards the strategic objectives of replacing poor quality
space, refurbishing existing buildings, ensuring that learning
spaces are fit for purpose, meeting the needs of new
subject areas (e.g. Dentistry and Law), and providing new
student accommodation.
We still have some poor quality space which it is
uneconomic or impractical to refurbish (particularly the
Wiltshire Building and Eldon West). We also have two
4 Southern Universities Management Services.
6 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

uildings that require extensive refurbishment if we are to
retain them for the medium to long term (Mercantile House
and St. George’s). Finally, we have one student hall which is
outdated and cannot easily be updated (Burrell Hall). There
is a significant and persistent unmet demand for student
housing.
The University’s home/EU student numbers are likely to
remain fixed for the next few years. There may be some
growth in international student numbers (for example from
ICP), and this may have implications for student housing
needs. However, it does not seem likely that any major
expansion of the University’s academic space will be
needed during the lifetime of this Strategy.
Two Faculties (CCi and HSS) suffer from having their
activities dispersed across more than one separated site.
An aim of this Strategy is to co-locate Faculties as far as
possible. This aim will be largely met by moving the School
of Architecture and SCAFM to the proposed Eldon West
and NTR buildings (see later), and also by moving SECS
and ICJS to the new Victoria Building (again see later).
Thus, the University’s likely space requirements and strategy
can be summarised as follows:
• We need to provide space for academic activities (i.e.
teaching and research) at about the current level.
• We must work to ensure that our teaching and research
spaces (laboratories, lecture theatres, seminar rooms
etc) meet current and future Faculty requirements for
size, configuration, facilities and equipment. This may
mean re-configuration of room sizes and layouts has to
take place as teaching/research needs change.
• There is a continuing demand from academic staff for
individual cellular office space. However, this demand
is unsustainable in terms of general provision for
academic and support staff. The design of any new
build or major refurbishment project will be based on
sensitively designed shared office areas accompanied
by adequate and appropriate provision of private
interview rooms. This should lead to a more cost
effective and efficient use of space resources. Where
it is considered there is supportable justification
to deviate from this policy this will require the prior
approval of the Directorate.
• Our aim is to maintain the quality of our existing stock
of student accommodation, and as finances and
opportunities permit make available further student
bedrooms. As a very rough estimate we may need
another 1500 bedrooms in addition to the number
available in 2009/10. We should not necessarily aim
to own or lease additional student housing – seeking
development partners may be a more effective way
to secure additional student housing and reduces the
financial risk to the University.
• The University’s Professional Services and Support
Departments are dispersed across a number of
buildings, some of which are not well optimised for
their current use. As opportunities arise we should
consider co-locating Professional Services and Support
Departments in larger, more energy-efficient and betterquality
buildings – especially where this allows us to
dispose of or terminate leases on some of our smaller
and less desirable properties.
5. Planning the future estate
5.1 Background
Recent years has seen the University invest heavily in
its estate with transformational results. The estate has
been transformed from one with a disparate collection
of buildings spread across a number of areas of
the city in varying states of condition and functional
suitability to one predominantly located in the heart
of the city comprising buildings in good condition
and providing a high level of functional suitability. This
has been achieved by a mix of property acquisitions,
disposals, refurbishments and a number of new
purpose-built buildings.
This process has been guided by previous Estates
Strategies building on an initial framework set out in
1992, updated in 1999/2000 and a master plan which
set out a vision for the future of the University in 1992.
Most of the aspirations of that plan have now been
achieved.
In 1995 a detailed planning study of Ravelin Park was
undertaken to inform possible future developments in
that location as it was clear that the available land for
future development was limited. The amenity value of
the park was recognised and therefore the resultant
plan was landscape driven which maintained the
amenity value whilst identifying a number of sites,
predominantly to the north of the park, which could
be developed. The plan was formally adopted by
Portsmouth City Council as planning guidance for
future planning decisions.
Langstone Campus had the benefit of a planning
consent for a further 680 study bedrooms, however,
the decision was taken in 2002 not to pursue a
renewal due to the strengthening of planning policy
relating to open spaces, playing fields and housing,
coupled with the difficult planning history of the site.
5.2 Overview of future development
opportunities
As intimated previously in this document the
University has limited opportunities for undertaking
developments on land in its existing freehold
ownership. Where such opportunities do exist they
generally require demolition of existing building stock
as part of the development. There are however a
small number of possibilities for such developments
which are expanded upon later in this Strategy but in
summary they are:
• Anglesea-Burnaby area on land released as a
result of previous or future demolition of poorer
quality buildings.
• The remaining undeveloped sites identified in
the Ravelin Park development plan referred to in
paragraph 5.1 above and consisting mainly of
the site of the previous Student Union building,
Alexandra House.
• Wiltshire Building site.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 7

Two other possibilities which were not in University
ownership were identified in the previous Estate
Strategy, namely the site of the Tennis Dome in
Cambridge Road (currently in MOD ownership
and leased to Portsmouth City Council) and the
site of the Swimming Pool in Victoria Park (owned
by Portsmouth City Council). Whilst the former of
these two remains a possibility in the future, at the
time of drafting this Strategy the University is in the
final stages of negotiations to acquire the site of the
swimming pool in Victoria Park for a mixed student
residential and academic space development.
In addition to these two sites, land to the rear of and
in the ownership of the New Theatre Royal (NTR) has
also been identified as a possible future development
site for the location of certain aspects of the various
performing arts departments.
5.3 Planning studies
In order to provide a realistic basis for the satisfaction
of future development needs the University
commissioned studies of the North Campus,
the southern end of Ravelin Park and the site at
Eastney in an effort to establish acceptable levels of
development in these areas.
5.3.1 North Campus
The removal of temporary buildings at the
rear of the Anglesea and Burnaby Buildings
was undertaken using HEFCE Poor Estates
Initiative funding from 1999 onwards. This led
to the creation of a number of development
opportunities in this area, and architects
Stubbs Rich were commissioned to examine
the options for its future and that of the North
Campus more generally.
The study concluded that it would be possible
to undertake a phased redevelopment of five
buildings on the area between Anglesea and
Burnaby buildings which when completed
would provide over 15,800m 2 of new space
whilst demolishing approximately 8,350m 2
resulting in a net addition of approximately
7,450m 2 . These proposals were supported by
the local planning authority and approved by
the Board of Governors as the preferred route
for future development of the North Campus.
The Dennis Sciama Building is the first building
of this plan, possible without significant
demolition, and was completed and opened
for use in January 2009 and provided a new
home for the Institute of Cosmology and
Gravitation, a variety of general purpose
teaching spaces and new staff and student
catering facilities.
5.3.2 Ravelin Park South
The Ravelin Park plan previously mentioned
established the principle that developments
could be undertaken on the site of a
demolished building. This principle has been
adopted for the Student Centre building and
the Dental Outreach Centre. The previous
Students’ Union building, Alexandra House,
was located in the south west corner of
the Park and this site, together with the
adjacent Rotunda building site were reviewed
to establish the scale of buildings that
would be acceptable to the local planning
authority. This review, supported by the local
planning authority, concluded that buildings
of approximately 3,350m 2 and 1,750m 2
respectively were likely to be acceptable. The
Alexandra House building site is currently
being utilised as a car park under a temporary
planning permission.
5.3.3 Institute of Marine Sciences, Eastney
The site at Eastney was acquired from
the MOD in the mid 1990s and consists
of a collection of separate buildings on an
exposed site on a spit of land in Langstone
Harbour. Whilst the buildings provide adequate
accommodation in most respects there is
a need for additional space and the ability
to move between facilities in comfort when
the weather is inclement would be a distinct
advantage. A basic development plan was
produced in 2004 in order to demonstrate
how the site could be developed on a phased
basis whilst remaining operational. This was
undertaken to inform the location etc. of a
new building which has subsequently been
constructed and which effectively forms the
first phase of a development plan.
In 2009 architects were appointed to produce
a more detailed development plan which
satisfied the local planning authority and
enabled the University to progress the next
phase. The resulting document proposes
a further three phases of development
comprising individual buildings linked by a
common atrium/link which will enable users
to move between facilities in comfort. These
three phases provide a total of 2,231m 2
(GEA) of new space whilst demolishing some
1,107m 2 (GEA) of existing accommodation
thus providing a net additional 1,124m 2 (GEA)
of space. It is anticipated that the first of these
three phases will commence on site in 2010.
5.4 Other development opportunities
5.4.1 Wiltshire Building
The Wiltshire Building currently houses
performing arts and music activities and is
in many ways less than ideal. Should the
joint development with the NTR referred to
in paragraph 5.3 above come to fruition this
site is likely to be disposed of. However,
should this not turn out to be the case the
site provides a possible opportunity for
development in the future, ideally in connection
with the acquisition of adjacent properties to
create a more rational footprint. Initial thoughts
are that a development of approximately
3,500–4,500m 2 would be possible on the
rationalised site.
8 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

5.4.2 Swimming Pool Site, Victoria Park
The University is currently working with
a development partner to acquire and
develop this site to provide approximately
600 bedrooms of student residential
accommodation together with approximately
4,300m 2 of academic space. This will assist
with the shortfall of student bedrooms
identified in paragraph 4 and enable the
potential disposal of the St George’s Building
and Burrell House located on the southern
edge of the Guildhall Campus.
5.4.3 Tennis Dome Site
An initial assessment is that this site, located
adjacent to the Nuffield Sports Hall and
Spinnaker buildings could accommodate a
building of approximately 4,000m 2 . Due to
the current ownership status of the site any
potential acquisition is likely to be a lengthy
process and is also unlikely to become
available in the near future. At this stage it has
been considered for completeness sake but
has not been taken into account in current
plans.
5.4.4 New Theatre Royal back lot
At the time of drafting this Strategy the
University is working with the NTR to jointly
develop this site for both University activities
and much needed additional facilities for the
theatre which they lost in a fire in 1972. This
development will enable the co-location of
performing arts and music with a working
theatre and the probable disposal of the
Wiltshire Building where these activities are
currently based.
5.4.5 Milldam House
Milldam house is an in-lier in the University’s
property portfolio which is currently owned
by Portsmouth City Council. It is unlikely to
offer a future development opportunity, but
its acquisition could provide an additional
250m 2 of space and rationalise the University’s
boundary in this part of the North Campus.
5.5 Future needs
It is not anticipated that the University will grow
significantly either in terms of student numbers or
overall size of estate during the period of this Estate
Strategy. It will therefore more likely be a period of
consolidation and rationalisation as opportunities arise
rather than expansion. However, should expansion
become necessary it would be possible to build
additional facilities on existing University sites.
5.6 Other considerations
As mentioned in paragraph 1.1 Mercantile House
falls within the small percentage of the estate
that is considered to be in condition category C.
The completion of the Eldon, NTR and Victoria
developments and the subsequent vacation of St
George’s Building will provide decant space for the
activities remaining in Mercantile House. This will
enable Mercantile House to be refurbished thereby
removing a significant portion of the category C space.
Three sites currently have temporary planning
consents, Milldam Nursery, Ravelin Car Park and
Montgomery Building at Eastney. The Nursery,
currently housed in a temporary building in the
Milldam Courtyard, is due to move into new facilities
in LA Block at Milldam following its refurbishment and
conversion. The temporary nursery building will then
be removed.
The Ravelin Car Park consent has been renewed for
a further three years expiring in 2010. This is proving
to be a beneficial asset to the University, and the City
who make use of it at weekends, and attempts will
be made to secure a permanent consent if possible.
However, this will not be a straightforward exercise
due to the City’s transport policies. The site does,
of course, remain as one of the University’s possible
development sites.
The Montgomery Building at Eastney will be removed
as part of the last phase of development on this site
(see paragraph 5.4.3 above) and until such time as
this is instigated further renewals will be required.
5.7 Summary
The various planning studies that have been
undertaken have identified a number of development
opportunities on sites currently in University
ownership. There are also two site acquisitions, NTR
and Victoria Pool, which are currently being pursued.
Due to the anticipation that the University will not grow
significantly during this plan period it is believed that
further site acquisitions will not be necessary to meet
the University’s strategic aims. However, the exception
to this would be if opportunities arise to acquire sites
that would be of strategic importance in terms of
their location or if such an acquisition would enable
further consolidation and rationalisation of activities,
particularly in terms of the Professional Services
departments.
6. Estate maintenance
One of the strategic aims of the University is to give an
excellent student experience. There are many things that
combine to provide this but one essential ingredient is to
offer a well maintained estate in good condition and fit for
the purpose. As has been mentioned previously the majority
of the estate falls with condition categories A or B but to
achieve and maintain this level of quality requires a pro
active maintenance programme which is adequately funded.
The day-to-day maintenance of the estate can be
subdivided into reactive and planned preventative activities.
Reactive maintenance is reported through the Estates
Helpdesk and formally logged into the works order
management system. The aim is to increase the level
of planned preventative maintenance and, as a result,
reduce the level of reactive activities required by the early
identification and rectification of problems.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 9

A programme of annual condition surveys is used to inform
a rolling five year Long Term Maintenance (LTM) plan
which identifies and schedules the more major items of
expenditure as opposed to the day-to-day maintenance
referred to above. The LTM is reviewed on a regular basis
and revised in accordance with the surveys and available
budgets.
7. Health and safety
The University’s central Health and Safety Office has overall
responsibility for ensuring the activities of the University
are carried out in accordance with relevant legislation etc.
Management of the estate in general clearly falls within this
overall remit but there are specific, and increasingly more,
sections of legislation which relate to the wide range of
activities that constitute estate management. The University
will integrate Health and Safety into all of these activities,
taking all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the
health and safety of all persons affected by them.
The University uses software to manage many of its estate
related activities and will work towards incorporating the
management and coordination of health and safety into the
existing software systems to ensure compliant safe systems
of work are used for all of its activities and the activities of
third parties employed to undertake estate management
tasks on its behalf.
8. Environmental management
8.1 Policy and legislation
Continuing to improve the overall environmental
management and performance of the estate is key to
achieving standards and reducing operational costs.
To support this, the University has created a policy
structure which includes controls on the impacts of
the buildings, starting with the environmental policy
and concluding with codes of practice for sustainable
construction, and energy and carbon reduction.
Within this policy context it is expected that design
teams will consistently use the BREEAM approach to
sustainable building design in order to drive the need
for energy efficient buildings which are cheaper to run.
HEFCE has introduced carbon management
policy which expects Universities to have carbon
management plans in place and to report annually
on carbon reductions in order to satisfy CIF2.
From a legislation perspective there are increasing
demands on the estate to be publicly accountable
for energy consumption and associated carbon
emissions. The introduction in 2008 of Display Energy
Certificates (DEC) for existing larger buildings, Energy
Performance Certificates (EPC) for new, sold or rented
buildings and the introduction of the CRC Energy
Efficiency Scheme are pressing the University to
acknowledge and reduce its carbon emissions.
The estate also has to simplify its approach to the
management of new waste management legislation
that covers site waste management plans for
construction/refurbishment projects over a certain
value and disposal controls on waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE) and batteries.
Ultimately, to install safeguards and proper controls,
accreditation to the international standard for
environmental management systems (ISO14001) by
2013 is essential as it will provide external scrutiny of
our compliance with environmental policy, legislation
and procedures. The first stages of accreditation
are being implemented by a joint Health, Safety and
Environment project board which is aiming to expand
the use of the existing estate management software,
Maximo, to host system records.
8.2 Carbon reduction
The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme is a compelling
reason to reduce carbon emissions from energy
consumption as the University is subject to full
compliance and is having to carefully manage its
participation and performance within the scheme.
From April 2011 carbon allowances will have to be
purchased for the year ahead with some return of
this expenditure depending upon performance in the
annual league tables.
In recognition of the carbon reduction obligations
there are already in place schemes to reduce carbon
emissions from energy use. The University’s success
in obtaining funding from the HEFCE/Salix Revolving
Green Fund has enabled the creation of a fund for
energy efficiency projects which is now saving up
to 400t CO2 per annum and producing significant
reductions to energy bills. The fund is continually
topped up from energy savings and will be used to
drive carbon emissions down. In addition the whole
estate has been covered by a radio-based energy use
monitoring system which can in most cases monitor
and record gas and electricity consumption per
building each half hour of every day. This automatic
monitoring and targeting system (AM&T) will be used
to identify where energy usage can be reduced.
Participation in the Carbon Trust’s HE Carbon
Management Programme will culminate in a detailed
carbon management plan being available in the first
half of 2011. The plan will provide a long-term carbon
reduction strategy from energy use but will also cover
carbon emissions from fleet vehicles, recycling and
waste, water consumption and commuting, all areas
influenced by management of the estate. It is likely
that a strategic rethink of energy supply to buildings
will be required in order to meet long-term carbon
reduction targets.
Reliable data collection systems are proving vital in
the reporting of carbon emissions and in improving
environmental performance generally. Systems will be
extended to cover all scopes of carbon emission and
existing relationships maintained to monitor water use
and provide monthly weight data for recycling and
general waste. Carbon reduction will be overseen by
the work of the Carbon Management Group chaired
by a Pro Vice-Chancellor which will continue to
guide the University through its carbon management
obligations.
10 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

8.3 Sustainable construction and
refurbishment
The University has successfully achieved an
‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating for the library extension
in the past and this approach will be included in the
specification for all new buildings. To compliment
this approach use of the BRE Green Guide to
Specification will be used as a valuable asset in the
selection of materials with low environmental impact.
Ideally a standard specification for sustainable
construction will be developed for use in tendering
which will ensure in particular the procurement of low
energy use buildings. The specification could be used
for the refurbishment of buildings too.
Waste weight data from construction and
refurbishment projects will be collected from
contractors site waste management plans (SWMP)
and incorporated within annual statistics.
The estate needs to recognise its role in adapting
to climate change. Over the course of this Strategy
a climate change risk assessment needs to be
undertaken and a plan put in place which influences
a range of services including building design to cope
with changes in our climate.
9. Funding the Estate Strategy
Since 1999 the University has produced a Capital Plan
which is updated every 4–5 years. The Capital Plan runs
in parallel with the Estates Strategy and is intended to
demonstrate that the University’s capital expenditure
ambitions are achievable.
The current Capital Plan covers the period from 2009–2014.
The detailed Plan was presented and discussed at the
meeting of Estates and IT Committee held on 26 May
2009. The total expenditure proposed (including 10% for
contingencies and an allowance for inflation over the life of
the Plan) is £64m. This expenditure is partially funded by a
number of planned property disposals.
The Capital Plan is focussed almost entirely on
improvements to the University Estate. New and refurbished
academic buildings and the provision of additional student
accommodation are planned. A key aim is to improve the
student experience by eliminating the remaining poorerquality
accommodation. Funding is drawn from a variety of
sources, including:
• Disposals (Wiltshire, Burrell, Halpern, St George’s,
Guildhall Walk)
• HEFCE Teaching and Learning Capital Funding
• HEFCE Strategic Development fund
• NHS (for Dental Outreach)
• the University’s own resources.
The 2009 Capital Plan was written during 2008–9 and
property prices have changed substantially in the last 18
months. The outlook for HEFCE (and other public sector)
funding is far more uncertain than was the case at the time
the Plan was drafted. Nevertheless, work has continued on
most of the projects reported in the Plan. In most cases
substantial progress has been made with planning and
design, and in some cases site work is underway or has
been completed.
A refurbishment of Mercantile House (estimated cost around
£10m) has been deferred until other major projects (Eldon
and Victoria) are complete. Mercantile is a stand alone
project and is one where deferral due to funding delays
would impact least severely on student experience of the
three main projects in the Plan. A structural survey has been
undertaken to confirm that this building requires no urgent
remedial action.
For similar reasons the planned refurbishment of the St
George’s Building has also been deferred.
The major building projects included in the Plan are:
• development of the Victoria Pool site;
• development of the Eldon West site and a linked
development on the New Theatre Royal ‘back lot’;
• replacement of marine science laboratories at Eastney;
• construction of a security lodge and refurbishment of
the changing rooms at Langstone;
• conversion of the Students’ Union nightclub into a
social learning area;
• conversion of the former refectory in Anglesea into
facilities for the School of Law.
The current Capital Plan does not envisage any
further building in Ravelin Park. No other development
opportunities are currently being considered (as discussed
in section 5). However, as discussed in section 5.7 the
University will consider and investigate any sites that may
become available within the ‘University Quarter’ on a caseby-case
basis.
The Victoria Pool site development involves a partner who
is co-funding much of the building work. This approach
is likely to be used again should further residential
development opportunities arise.
10. Conclusion
• The University is committed to delivering the Estate
Strategy against the current background of financial
and academic uncertainty.
• It is not anticipated that the University will grow
significantly during the period of this Estate Strategy.
It will therefore more likely be a period of consolidation
and rationalisation as opportunities arise rather than
expansion. However, should expansion become
necessary it would be possible to build additional
facilities on existing University sites.
• The University’s strategy is to preserve the existing
geographical focus and resist any temptation to move
outside the ‘University Quarter’.
• There are a number of sites within the ‘University
Quarter’ that may become available, and the University
should always be prepared to consider acquiring
sites of strategic importance within or adjacent to the
campus.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 11

• The majority of the estate is in condition category A
or B and our aim is to maintain this level of quality
and have all of our facilities in at least category B. The
completion of the developments and refurbishment
projects identified in this Estate Strategy should achieve
this aim.
• The co-location of dispersed activities will be pursued
as far as possible/practical. Academically this will be
achieved with the completion of the Victoria, Eldon and
NTR developments.
• There is a continuing demand from academic staff for
individual office space. However, this demand may be
unsustainable and serious consideration should be
given to increasing the amount of shared or open-plan
office space in any new or reconfigured buildings.
• There is a significant and persistent unmet demand
for student residential accommodation. The current
Victoria development will meet a proportion of this
demand but the University will be open to the provision
of further bedrooms through partnership arrangements.
• The University will continue to undertake sufficient
preventive work to avoid creating problems for the
future. Our strategy will be to ensure that a sufficient
and adequate annual budget is allocated for long-term
maintenance.
• There is a significant challenge to be met in terms of the
reduction in energy use and carbon emissions which
the University is committed to meeting.
• Finally, this Strategy is being drafted at a time of
economic and, to an extent, academic uncertainty.
Therefore the Strategy set out may need to be revised
to take account of events that may unfold as a result of
this uncertainty.
12 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Appendix 1
Data
Building Gross Condition Main Tenure
area (m 2 ) category use
Guildhall Campus
Anglesea Building (+ Lodge) 9,656 B Ac FH
Buckingham Building 4,118 B Ac FH
Burnaby Building 5,612 C Ac FH
Burnaby Building Huts 216 B Ac FH
Burnaby Terrace 812 B Ac FH
Dennis Sciama 3,280 A Ac/Re/Pr FH
Durham Street 181 B Pr LH
Eldon Building (incl ext) 9,979 B Ac FH
Guildhall Walk 1,076 B Pr FH
Halpern House 954 B Pr FH
Hampshire Terrace 1,107 B Pr LH
James Watson – Ground Floor 2,424 A Pr/Ac LH
King Henry Building 6,278 B Ac/Re FH
Lion Gate Building 2,708 B Ac FH
Mercantile House 4,848 C Pr/Ac FH
Middle Street (36–40) 624 B Ac LH
Middle Street (56) 506 B Pr LH
Milldam Site 3,651 B Ac FH
Nuffield Centre 3,881 B Pr FH
Nuffield Sports Hall 1,625 A Pr FH
Park Building (+ Annexe) 8,863 B Ac FH
Port Royal Street 642 B Pr LH
Portland Building 6,715 B Ac FH
Ravelin House (+ Annexes) 824 B Ac FH
Richmond Building 6,799 A Ac FH
Rotunda 314 C Pr FH
Spinnaker Building 1,805 A Ac/Re FH
St George’s Building 5,360 B Ac FH
St Andrew’s Court 462 A Pr LH
St Michael’s Building 5,822 B Ac/Re FH
St Michael’s Building Extn 6,697 B Ac/Re FH
St Paul’s Road 1,801 B Pr FH
Student Centre (Gun House) 779 B Pr FH
Student Centre (Main) 3,576 B Pr FH
University House (+ Lodge) 3,102 B Pr FH
University Library 10,373 A Pr FH
William Beatty 1,223 A Ac FH
Wiltshire Building 1,901 C Ac FH
Langstone
Amenities Block and Sick Bay 1,232 B Pr FH
Changing Rooms 401 B Pr FH
Langstone 2,124 B Pr FH
Service Buildings 226 C Pr FH
Sundry Other Buildings
Eastney 1,303 B/C Ac/Re FH
Montgomery Building 113 B Ac FH
Petersfield 313 B Re LH
Tradescant 223 C Re LH
Key: Ac – Academic; Re – Research; Pr – Professional Services; Res – Residential.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 13

Building Gross Condition Main Tenure
area (m 2 ) category use
Halls of Residence
Barnard Tower 2,317 B Res FH
Bateson Hall 5,343 B Res FH
Burrell House 2,437 C Res FH
Harry Law Hall 7,719 B Res FH
James Watson Hall 17,942 A Res LH
Langstone Flats 3,973 B Res FH
Margaret Rule Hall 8,820 B Res LH
Rees Hall 6,422 B Res FH
Trafalgar Hall 9,985 A Res LH
Trust Block 1,586 B Res FH
QEQM – A/B 681 B Res FH
QEQM – C/D 681 B Res FH
QEQM – E/F 808 B Res FH
QEQM – G/H 680 B Res FH
QEQM – White/Dymond 705 B Res FH
QEQM – Bungalows & Lodge 369 C Res FH
QEQM – Ker/St James 495 B Res FH
Key: Ac – Academic; Re – Research; Pr – Professional Services; Res – Residential.
14 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Appendix 2
Maps
Portsmouth
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 15

University Quarter (Guildhall)
16 ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH

Appendix 3
Out-turn from the 2006–2010 Estate Strategy
(only applicable paragraphs have been included)
Paragraph
reference
Item
Brief resume
2.6 Running costs • Through use of the HEFCE/Salix Revolving Green Fund it has been possible
to invest in a number of energy efficiency projects.
• A Carbon Management Group has been formed to steer the institution’s
activities relating to the Carbon Reduction agenda.
4.1 Academic space requirements • Joint project with the New Theatre Royal being progressed to provide
replacement accommodation for the Wiltshire Building.
4.3 Support accommodation • Requirement has not been as great as anticipated but a small amount of
replacement/additional space has been acquired at St Andrew’s Court.
4.4 Residential accommodation • Applications for halls places have exceeded available places in recent years
and therefore additional spaces are being progressed in conjunction with
third party providers.
• When developments referred to above come online serious consideration
will be given to the disposal of Burrell House.
5.3 An overview of future development
opportunities
• Negotiations are currently ongoing regarding the acquisition and
development of the site of the former swimming pool in Victoria Park.
5.4 Recent planning studies • Dennis Sciama Building on the North Campus was opened in January
2009.
5.5 Other development opportunities • See resume for 5.3 above.
5.7 Other considerations • Redevelopment of existing space in Milldam to provide permanent nursery
facility currently nearing completion.
• Renewed temporary planning consent for the car park in Ravelin Park
obtained.
6 Estate maintenance • PPM system using Maximo software in place.
• Maximo upgraded to latest version in 2009 and Archibus currently being
reviewed.
• 8% of all buildings fall below condition category B.
• Not all Estate record drawing yet in electronic format.
7.1 Funding the Strategy • All major building projects identified in the second phase capital plan have
been completed.
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ESTATE STRATEGY 2011–2015 17

University of Portsmouth
Estates Department
1 Guildhall Walk
Portsmouth PO1 2RY
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)23 9284 2679
F: +44 (0)23 9284 2742
E: estates@port.ac.uk
W: www.port.ac.uk
MD5730 0910