part two2.7 The review came up with a number of proposalsfor rationalisation of the delivery of individual training,concluding that there were a number of common singleService specialist training activities which could beconducted jointly in Defence schools. The Departmentselected six areas of specialist trade training which offeredgreatest scope for rationalisation, given the volumes ofstudents and the scope for synergies. The Departmentis currently pursuing this rationalisation programmethrough a Public Private Partnership on the basis of twopackages of work covering the six areas identified. TheDepartment is currently under negotiation with shortlistedbidders. Meanwhile, the Department has centralised themanagement arrangements for Service-wide training on afunctional basis.2.8 In London, the Main Building Refurbishmentprogramme was completed to time, cost andquality, allowing the release of a number of centralLondon buildings. Another project deals with furtherrationalisation of the wider London estate and is coveredin more detail in Part 3.2.9 The provision and consolidation of barracksand other facilities at Colchester and in the Aldershotand Salisbury Plain areas is being delivered through,respectively, Colchester Garrison and Allenby/ConnaughtPrivate Finance Initiative projects. These projects haveprovided for the relocation of some smaller units andreleased surplus land for disposal, and are covered inmore detail in Part 3.2.10 Following a Strategic Review of RAF Brize Norton,Lyneham and St Mawgan, the closure of RAF Lynehamand consolidation of the Air Transport and Air-to-Airrefuelling fleets at RAF Brize Norton were announced4 July 2003.This work has not precluded significantdisposal receipts being generated2.11 Over £1 billion of disposals has been achievedbetween 1999-2000 and 2003-2004. Examples of thedisposals that have taken place since 1999-2000 areshown in Figure 3.3Examples of disposalsThe Department has disposed of many major sites already.Financial Disposal Examples of majoryear receipts sites sold(£ million)1999-2000 301 RAF Stanmore Park;Duke of York’s headquarters,Chelsea; and RAF Quedgeley.2000-01 225 Royal Army Medical College,Millbank; former RAF Kemble;Queen Elizabeth Park Barracks,Guildford.2001-02 185 Burscough Depot; RAF Locking;Aston Down.2002-03 279 RAF Burtonwood; Arras LinesCatterick; Pease Hill DevelopmentSite, Scotland.2003-04 207 Staff College, Bracknell; RAFSt Athan (part).Total 1,197Source: Defence EstatesContinued focus on estaterationalisation is needed if theDepartment is to meet itsdisposal targets2.12 The Royal Navy has made progress in determiningits estate requirements and has concentrated its activitiesaround the three bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth andon the Clyde, which form part of the Defence LogisticsOrganisation. The bases on the Clyde and at Plymouthare generally well developed; within Portsmouth, furtherrationalisation is possible. The Royal Air Force led defenceairfields review is recommending the retention of thethree Royal Naval Air Stations at Culdrose, Prestwick andYeovilton (see below). A separate review is looking at thebasing of the Royal Marines.12MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: MANAGING THE DEFENCE ESTATE
part two2.13 The Royal Air Force led a review into all defenceairfields. The resulting report sets out the long-termoperational requirement and recommends the ‘maximumimpact’ option of the closure of many of the smallerairfields over the next 15 years (an airfield is definedas an area of land with a runway capable of supportingmilitary aircraft operations). The bulk of these closurescould come in the first three years. Further work needsto be done to validate the savings that might accruefrom this rationalisation and to ensure that the up-frontcosts are affordable against other departmental priorities.The Department, however, recognises that airfieldrationalisation is an important part of ensuring thatthe right sized estate is achieved. The risk of adoptingone of the lesser options is a continuing legacy of anunaffordable estate in maintenance terms and a growingrequirement for capital investment.2.14 Determining the Army requirement is moredifficult as the future army structure is evolving, andthe future of forces in Germany and Northern Ireland isuncertain. The July 2004 Command Paper ‘DeliveringSecurity in a Changing World – Future Capabilities’ 6stated that a major restructuring of the Army is plannedto better enable brigade level operations. The DefenceSecretary announced details of these changes on16 December 2004. In addition, the practice of armsplotting – moving infantry battalions and their familiesbetween roles and geographical locations every fewyears - will be phased out. This has implications for thesize and locations of future garrisons. “The Strategy forthe Army Estate” recommended consolidation into“super” garrison sites.2.15 In addition to the Army’s new structure there will bechanges in the number and type of equipment it operates;and this has ramifications for the facilities to support thatequipment. For instance, there is a planned reduction inthe number of Challenger armoured squadrons.2.16 Uncertainty over the future of some sites has ledto works and maintenance being delayed, postponed orcancelled to avoid nugatory expenditure. Such managementaction is understandable and has led to adjustments tothe Regional Prime Contracts’ planned expenditure onmaintenance. In the longer term, this action could result inadditional costs on those parts of the estate subsequentlyretained. Single Living Accommodation Modernisationprojects have been reprogrammed to avoid building atsites with uncertain futures whilst ensuring maximisationof delivery of new bedspaces within the current fundedprogramme. For instance, projects at RAF Wittering, RoyalMarines Norton Manor, Bickleigh and Chivenor were puton hold due to uncertainties over their future use. Projectsat Dalton, Invicta and the Duke of Gloucester Barrackswere cancelled. It was sensible to proceed on this basis andthe SLAM project was able to ensure that alternative highpriority schemes were brought forward. However, greatercertainty would allow for more efficient scheduling of work.Tight deadlines were set for submissionof business cases, which, after scrutiny byDefence Estate Committee, form the basis of aplan for rationalisation2.17 <strong>Full</strong> business cases, resulting from the rationalisationreviews, were submitted to the Defence Estate Committeeon 3 December 2004, in time to inform planning for2005-06. Whilst these business cases have been developedseparately, Defence Estates Committee took an active rolein ensuring coherence. Proposals for additional fundingfor these cases have been considered by the DefenceManagement Board. The Board endorsed funding coveringthe options for rationalisation and collocation of singleService headquarters and supporting staff; collocationof parts of the Defence Logistics Organisation in theSouth West and rationalisation of the Chief of DefenceIntelligence’s estate. Proposals on defence airfields, theRoyal Marines estate, super garrisons and the defencetraining estate have been deferred until 2006-07 to allowfor further work to validate costs and savings. These optionsare subject to agreement by Ministers and consultationwith staff and unions. Other projects with an estaterationalisation component continue to be developedseparately in consultation with Defence Estates.6 ‘Delivering Security in a Changing World – Future Capabilities’, Cm 6269, published July 2004MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: MANAGING THE DEFENCE ESTATE13