Welcome to our fifth e newsletter of 2011.
This month we start with commentary on the eagerly awaited review of the Service Charge Code by a range of Industry heavyweights and follow this up with an article about other influential property leaders taking the DEC debate right to the PM’s door, in the pursuit of pressurising the Government to keep to its Green promises.
We then look at how local authority funding is likely to embrace the Community Infrastructure Levy, highlight changes in ownership and maintenance of our sewers and also question value-for –money with certain building projects. We finish with our Q and A section which seeks to explain what’s out there…. in The Cloud.
Take a look at the 'New Code'
Launched and ready to take effect from the 1st October 2011 the revised Service Charge Code (‘New Code’) is here. The ‘New Code’ has been drafted by a steering group which comprises representatives from a number of real estate groups including, the British Council of Offices, British Council of Shopping Centres, British Property Federation, British Retail Consortium, Corenet, Property Managers Association, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. You can take a look at this new document which we have uploaded to our Knowledge Centre but how does it differ?
The New Code has been revised after a consultation period managed by the RICS. During this consultation the RICS received over 200 responses covering a variety of issues which they were able to review.
The ‘New Code’ primarily is concerned with the management and administration of service charges which remain the single largest area of concern for occupiers. This ‘New Code’ also extends to assisting those involved in drafting service charge clauses and directs them in using the right phrases and language.
The ‘New Code’ covers a number of core principles and these are set out in 26 points, the more relevant principles being: allocation and apportionment, certification, proportionality, anticipated future expenditure, environmental sustainability, and standard cost classifications.
In all situations the need for effective communication cannot be underestimated. Occupiers have a need to understand how a service charge account is constructed as without it there’s an element of uncertainty and doubt over how the on-account and reconciliation sums are reached. If doubt and mis-trust creep into a relationship then achieving a collaborative working partnership becomes much harder to deliver. The ‘New Code’ identifies the importance of good communication and timely responses and TAP’s clients do favour our proactive and strategic methods of liaising and supporting their occupiers.
We would urge you to take a look at the ‘New Code’ and if you’re unsure about any of its contents then contact us where we can discuss any points you may have.
The Community Infrastructure Levy continues to gain support
Property consultancy, Drivers Jonas Deloitte, has published its 3rd annual review of the popularity of the Government’s proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a favoured method for Local Authorities to secure funding from development, and whilst this initiative was originally promoted by the Labour Government, it seems to be gaining momentum now that the Coalition administration has given backing to the scheme.
The results show that 68% of Authorities are now proposing to adopt the CIL, compared with only 20% in the 2009 survey, although you should be cautious with these figures as many Authorities still have other priorities ahead of adopting the CIL.
Julia Chowings of DJD comments, “Only a small number of authorities are advanced on CIL and the Government has recognised this in identifying them as Front Runner authorities. We anticipate that their progress will be watched closely with many learning lessons and best practice from their experience. It is apparent that many authorities are keen to share costs and resources by joining forces with neighbouring authorities to work on CIL.’’
So what is the CIL all about? Briefly, the levy is designed to help pay for the infrastructure required to support new development and may sit alongside the more commonly known planning obligations (Section 106 agreements). Charges will be based upon net additional sqm of floorspace in buildings that people normally use and will be calculated on evidence of the infrastructure needed, but in no way is the levy intended to be the main source of finance. Local authorities CAN apply the levy, but do not have to, however if they do then the infrastructure project must be set out on the authority’s website. Other than money, the levy can be paid in kind (i.e. the acceptance of any land or existing buildings).
For further specific information on this important planning improvement, TAP would be delighted to direct you to an industry expert.
It hasn’t changed in 74 years but now costs will rise
The Government is proposing to change the ownership of sewers and lateral drainage systems with effect from the 1st October 2011. The effect of this change will be to remove the uncertainty of who should repair and maintain the sewer system and make long term planning, in the light of changing climate conditions, easier.
Currently the majority of properties are connected to the sewer system from a private pipe or lateral drain and on the 1st October these will move across and become the responsibility of the statutory water authority. In a written Ministerial Statement by James Paice on the transfer of 200,000kms of private drains it was said “Private sewers serve more than one property so ownership is shared and usually a large extent of the sewer will lie outside a property’s own boundary. Lateral drains serve one property but always lie outside the property’s boundary. Transfer provides the only comprehensive solution to a range of private sewer and lateral drain problems affecting householders. These include a lack of awareness of owners’ responsibilities and unwillingness or inability to co-ordinate or contribute to potentially high costs of maintenance and repair. It will bring simplification and clarity to owners, local authorities and sewerage companies, all of whom typically become involved when these problems arise.
Transfer will also significantly help address a lack of integrated management of the sewerage network as a whole, and provide much greater efficiency of effort, environmental stewardship and expenditure at a time when climate change impacts and housing growth may impose greater demands on urban drainage systems. Having a much greater proportion of the sewer network in the management of the water and sewerage companies means they will be able to plan maintenance and resolve problems more easily and comprehensively.”
This transfer of responsibility will lead to higher sewerage charges for the repair and maintenance of the extended system. Early indications are that annual bills for residential properties, with shared sewers will increase by about £14 per annum.
Pressure increases on PM to deliver on promises for energy efficiency ratings
As a follow up to our comments in last month’s e Newsletter we draw further attention to the DEC debate with the news that some of the property industry’s heavy hitters have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister and Chris Huhne urging them to make DECs mandatory for the private sector.
The letter was initiated by the British Property Federation and the UK Green Building Council but attracted top level signatures from Hammerson, Land Securities, British Land and Legal and General, inter alia all of which is timed to escalate the debate such that A-G Energy ratings form part of the Energy Bill which is about to be debated in the House of Commons.
Following widespread criticism of EPCs and DECs only a few years ago by the property industry as yet another piece of EU Red Tape, it is ironic that the private sector is now calling for such mandatory
measures. As the letter says, “Unfortunately, a voluntary approach to take-up in the private sector will not work, because without a level playing field there is a reputational risk for those businesses that voluntarily adopt certification and achieve poor ratings.’’
As Liz Peace of the BPF observes, “Savings of between 5 and 30% can be made through simple no and low cost changes to the way a building is managed and occupied. A rating based on actual energy use will highlight these opportunities, which could otherwise remain hidden.’’
Additionally, Paul King of the UK Green Building Council adds, “It’s very simple - if you don’t know how much energy you are using, you cannot manage it. We’ve simply no idea how our buildings, up and down the country, are actually performing, so mandatory A-G ratings are the crucial first step in helping businesses understand and reduce their energy use…Government needs to listen to the property industry - this is something that will cut carbon, cut energy bills and create new market opportunities in green technologies.’’
TAP remains of the opinion that mandatory DECs are on their way, and as we have already suggested, it can do little harm to start introducing measuring methodology now, in order to be able to assemble backdated usage data which will undoubtedly be requested as benchmarking information.
TAP can direct you to experts capable of assisting with this procedure.
Lowering costs may not always be the answer...
Trying to balance the cost of a service with the value it provides isn’t always easy. In the current climate the tendering of contracts, to seek the lowest possible price, can occasionally undermine the standard being delivered and according to a recent survey undertaken by Lockton, an international insurance business, there is a suggestion that, when it comes to building works, cutting costs can increase project risk and reduce quality.
The survey interviewed a number of medium to large building contractors who primarily specialise in commercial fit-out and refurbishment projects. The results found that many are busier than they have
been in the last 2 years but because of the tough economic conditions the quality of the projects being finished in the next 24 months will be compromised. Why? Because many believe ‘short-cuts’ have to be made to support the quicker delivery times and cheaper prices.
A number of issues were cited as being of concern such as risk of injury to others, especially when the property is occupied, exposure to harmful substances (and in a few cases asbestos was referred to), solvency of the main contractor, lack of clarity in the client specification, and general pressure to have a fixed price contract.
Overall it seems that whilst people are looking to achieve lower prices for services they aren’t always thinking about the potential risks associated with ‘cutting corners’. Remember, value for money isn’t always about having the cheapest contract in place. Please speak to us if you feel concerned about how a contractor is performing or the potential risks associated with reducing the cost of a contract.
Question & Answer
With my new premises, should my IT infrastructure be based in The Cloud?
Establishing new business premises involves a vast range of choices and in an established business, many operational functions are taken for granted; however moving premises can throw up choice which may impact on working practices or floorspace usage. The locality of the IT infrastructure need not be present within your workspace anymore and can be housed in what’s commonly known as ‘The Cloud’. There is no clear definition of what is meant by this phrase but its common traits tend to be that it’s off-site, on-line and is paid for as part of a service with flexible costings based upon what you need and when.
One of the leading industry analysts, Gartner, describes it as ‘’A style of computing where massively scalable IT-enabled capabilities are delivered as a service to external customers using internet technologies’’.
Such an approach can lead to significant working efficiencies with staff all being able to access files and data from anywhere in the world, with negligible back-up, maintenance and storage worries and peace of mind from a business continuity perspective. It is anticipated that costs maybe as little as 10% of your current on-site costs but this depends on your requirement. Current examples that many are familiar with include Google G Mail, photo storage on Flickr and of course Facebook, all of which form part of a virtual desktop for individuals and their employers.
Topical language talks about the Public Cloud which refers to off-site data storage facilities that are usually provided by third parties on an ‘’as required’’ basis and the Private Cloud where there exists on-site pooling of available computing facilities, the latter of course still requiring maintenance, but resulting in reductions in equipment, energy consumption and the ability to decommission old equipment.
Typically, Cloud based projects are cheaper, quicker to deploy and offer greater flexibility.
Are there any drawbacks? Understandably, there is a perceived loss of control with the Public Cloud and questions about data security, limited redress in the event that things do go wrong, with cancellation of the contract being almost the only sanction and the fact that residual systems (if you have them) will still need maintenance and transitional attention. The first of these (data security/loss) is the most frequently raised however some would argue that with the regular automatic back-ups (and reputational pressures of the 3rd parties involved) data is more secure here than it might have been whilst resting on individuals under conventional operations.
For Private Clouds there still exist issues with the physical conditions prevailing in one’s building; namely, sufficient air-conditioning for equipment cooling, provision of multiple data cables and secure routes, access arrangements to data rooms, Landlord consents for new infrastructure, cabling, antennae, plus the whole issue of re-instatement when you move out again.
In summary, The Cloud (in whatever form) is both for now and the future and modern businesses need to constantly question the best route for themselves to allow for flexibility and mobility, but also to creat business efficiencies that were perhaps not possible when a company was originally formed.
