Cracks show at universities

The arts and humanities block at one university was a running joke until it was knocked down last year. The flat roof leaked and urgently needed replacing. The walls may have looked trendy, but they were made of a single sheet of glass that neither held in heat, nor kept it out. Frozen students were sent home rather than shiver in its lecture theatres and classrooms in winter. A secret database obtained through the courts by Education Guardian reveals that scores of university buildings in the UK have been in this state or worse. They have been judged "inoperable", "at serious risk of major failure or breakdown" or "unfit for purpose" by universities' surveyors. Some of the most popular, high-ranking institutions, such as the London School of Economics (LSE), have had 41% of lecture theatres and classrooms judged unsuitable for their current use as recently as two years ago. Imperial College London had 12% of its non-residential buildings categorised "inoperable" in the same period. At City University, 41% of the student digs were judged unfit for purpose. Universities have been quick to defend themselves following the revelations. They have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on their estates since the database was compiled, they say. Entire campuses have been mothballed and some universities say they now have no buildings in the worst categories. But surveyors say that, although universities' estates have improved in the last decade, there are many buildings deemed at serious risk of breakdown that are still being used. "There are lots of spaces being used like that," says Robert Kingham, a property consultant who has advised universities for six years. "These are the buildings that are first in line for demolition." The database obtained by the Guardian from the Higher Education Funding ­Council for England (Hefce) under freedom of information legislation is intended to help universities to compare the condition of their estates with those of their competitors. Universities employ surveyors to assess the buildings according to four categories: as new; sound and operationally safe; operational but in need of major repair; and inoperable, posing a serious risk of major failure and breakdown. At the extreme, these buildings might break fire regulations, or have leaks, or be rotting. The surveyors also record whether buildings are suitable for the purposes to which they are put: for student living, studying and academic teaching and research. Buildings here are also categorised under four headings from excellent to unsuitable for current use. Those deemed unsuitable might have pillars obstructing students' views of their lecturers, or may not be adaptable for use of modern technology. Universities are not forced to make refurbishments if part of their estate is crumbling, but may later be given a tougher time when they ask Hefce for public funds for their building projects. The database reveals that in more than 90% of higher education institutions, at least 10% of buildings have been judged below th e "sound and operationally safe" category. One in 10 universities had at least 10% of their estate judged inoperable and at serious risk of breakdown. Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Leeds Metropolitan and Nottingham Trent universities had 42%, 36% and 21% respectively of their lecture theatres, libraries and other non-residential buildings in the inoperable category. The University College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth, Westminster and Reading universities had 19%, 16% and 13% respectively of their student digs in the inoperable category. A quarter of all the higher education institutions have had at least 10% of their estate judged unsuitable for current use. Some, such as City and Glamorgan, have had 41% and 26% respectively of their halls of residence judged unfit for purpose. The LSE, Glasgow School of Art and the University of Bolton have had 41%, 34% and 27% of their lecture theatres and classrooms in this category. On the other hand, some universities are in excellent nick. Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh had 100% of its estate in the "as new" category. The Institute of Cancer Research had 85% of its non-residential buildings in this category, while the residential buildings of St George's, University of London, had 100%. But will they still be in a few years? Earlier this month, universities were told their grants for capital projects, such as new buildings, would be cut by 14.9% in cash terms to £562m in 2010-11. That's on top of government cuts of £915m to the sector over the next three years. The database shows that for some institutions, the cost of upgrading all "inoperable" buildings to "sound, operationally safe" would be a good chunk of their annual institutional income. At Harper Adams University College, in Shropshire, this would amount to 44.61% of its annual income. Tony Smith, director of QTC Projects Ltd, which advises universities, says estate directors are passionate about their buildings and keen to improve them "but can only do this within the constraints of the budgets they receive". As for the database, Hefce's deputy chief executive, Steve Egan, says it might mislead university applicants, who could end up studying in the best of buildings despite their institution having some buildings in the worst category. Universities have defended their patch, saying they have spent hundreds of millions upgrading their buildings since the judgments were made. A spokeswoman for the LSE, which has spent £107m on new buildings since the data was collected, says: "We have some catching up to do and our compact location in central London provides us with certain challenges, but we have a 10-year £200m capital plan dedicated to creating a world-class campus commensurate with our academic standing." Imperial admits many of its buildings are "coming to the end of their useful life". "To counter this, over the last three years, the college has spent on average £100m annually to provide the highest quality facilities for students and academic staff," a spokeswoman said. All other universities mentioned say they have made significant investment in their estates since the database was compiled. Glamorgan says it is spending £20m redeveloping its halls of residence, while Bolton has got rid of an entire campus. Glasgow School of Art has secured funding to get rid of buildings it recognises as no longer fit for purpose. Reading has reduced its worst buildings to just 6% of its estate, while the University College of St Mark and St John and Westminster say they no longer have residential estate in the worst category. With an estimated £2bn spent by universities on their estates each year – a third of which is public money – and the prospect of higher tuition fees, you'd hope so. Get the full list at: theguardian.com/datablog Uncovering the cracks: how the Guardian got the story • An estimated £50,000 of public money may have been been spent over two and a half years trying to keep the most sensitive parts of the universities' estate management database secret from the Guardian. The Higher Education Funding Council for England – a government agency – employed one of the top barristers on the Freedom of Information Act, Timothy Pitt-Payne, and at least two solicitors to work on the case. The Guardian has always said the condition of universities' halls of residences, labs, libraries and lecture theatres is a matter of public interest. Students and their families make considerable financial sacrifices to afford annual tuition fees of £3,225. They are likely to have to delve deeper into their pockets in the future and deserve to know the quality of the buildings they or their children will be living and studying in. Hefce insisted on keeping secret the proportion of each university's estate in the worst condition – and the cost to upgrade it as a proportion of the university's income – because it believed that disclosure would be a breach of confidence to the institutions. A breach, Hefce said, would mean universities stopped trusting Hefce and might potentially sue it. But the information tribunal in London, where the case was finally decided – after an appeal – ruled that disclosure was in the public's interest. Hefce claimed universities were likely to withhold information that might "portray them in a negative light" if data was to be made available to the public, and that this would make the database ultimately unreliable and worthless. The information tribunal discounted this argument. As the Guardian had proven, universities put all manner of sensitive statistics into the public domain because they understand the value of being transparent and honest. Aidan Eardley, the Guardian's barrister, says the decision will make it harder for public authorities to withhold information in the future. "Hefce argued that it had to demonstrate only that disclosure was arguably a breach of confidence. The tribunal imposed a much higher threshold: a public authority must show that a notional breach of confidence claim would in fact succeed." Earley says the tribunal was persuaded that the information "had substantial value for prospective students, local communities and the wider public." Steve Egan, deputy chief executive of Hefce, says: "We made a promise of confidentiality to the sector and they provided the information on that basis. It was meant to be used for internal benchmarking in the sector to enable them to improve their performance and deliver greater value for money. Students should have robust information, but we meet that by giving them other information. This information is too specific and could be misleading." But Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, says: "We are alarmed that such information was not made publicly available in the first place, so that institutions could be held properly accountable to students, who pay tuition fees, as well as to the taxpayer." JS