Building Schools for the Future is the most ambitious school building programme for a generation. As you would expect of a programme of this scale, there have been challenges and lessons have been learned from the early projects. These have led to improvements in the process supporting the delivery of BSF and in local authority preparations for joining the programme. The key reasons for the delays in some of the early local authority projects are as follows:
many local authorities in the early waves of the programme found identifying and resourcing the necessary project management skill sets to deliver the programme more challenging than expected;
a focus on “getting it right” to ensure that strategies are educationally transformational rather than simply focusing on pace of delivery has led to some authorities taking longer than originally expected to develop their education and procurement strategies; and
in the early waves the selected local authorities had the biggest challenges to manage, were pioneering the processes, and were at the forefront of resolving unexpected difficulties with innovative solutions.
The following table provides a comparison between the original expected project completion date and the current expected date for each local authority in the first three waves of BSF. Where specific local issues have impacted on the delivery timetable, these are also described.
Local authority Original expected project completion date Current expected project completion date Major reasons for delay Wave 1 Bradford December 2007 September 2008 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes Bristol April 2008 January 2009 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes Greenwich April 2009 September 2011 Piloting of non-standard BSF procurement model by local authority has been problematic and has caused considerable delay; Local resourcing difficulties; Issues around use of untested processes Knowsley September 2009 January 2010 Issues around use of untested processes Lancashire September 2010 August 2010 — Leeds September 2010 September 2011 Issues around use of untested processes Leicester September 2011 September 2011 — Lewisham July 2010 September 2010 Issues around use of untested processes Manchester September 2009 June 2011 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes; later project rescoping, including integrating seven new academies Newcastle March 2011 March 2011 — Newham January 2009 March 2011 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes; Local resourcing difficulties Sheffield March 2010 April 2011 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes Solihull September 2008 September 2009 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes STaG December 2012 January 2013 Issues around use of untested processes Sunderland Jan 2010 September 2010 Challenging original completion expectations; Issues around use of untested processes Waltham Forest September 2008 September 2008 — Wave 2 Birmingham September 2010 September 2011 Challenging original completion expectations; Local resourcing difficulties; More time taken to develop transformational strategy; later project rescoping, including integrating new academies Hackney September 2013 November 2013 Issues around use of untested processes Haringey March 2011 October 2011 Issues around use of untested processes Islington September 2011 September 2012 Local resourcing difficulties; More time taken to develop transformational strategy Kingston-upon-Hull September 2014 September 2014 — Lambeth September 2010 September 2010 — Liverpool September 2010 September 2011 Local resourcing difficulties; More time taken to develop transformational strategy; Issues around use of untested processes; Piloting of non-standard BSF procurement model by local authority has caused some delay Middlesbrough September 2011 September 2012 Local resourcing difficulties; changes to procurement strategy to achieve a better value for money outcome caused some delay Nottingham December 2010 December 2010 — Tower Hamlets June 2011 December 2011 Local resourcing difficulties; More time taken to develop transformational strategy Wave 3 Barnsley September 2011 September 2011 — Bradford August 2010 August 2010 — Derbyshire August 2011 August 2011 — Durham September 2011 September 2011 — Kent April 2011 July 2011 — Luton September 2010 November 2012 Local resourcing difficulties; Issues around identifying new sites for new schools have caused delay to the project N Lincs June 2011 April 2012 Local resourcing difficulties; More time taken to develop transformational strategy Salford January 2012 September 2012 More time taken to develop transformational strategy Sandwell March 2011 July 2011 More time taken to develop transformational strategy Southwark November 2014 April 2014 — Tameside January 2011 February 2011 More time taken to develop transformational strategy Westminster December 2010 November 2010 — Notes: 1. Formal baseline dates were only set for the first wave. Expected completion dates for projects beyond wave 3 are not confirmed until the outline business case is approved. 2. Stoke, a Wave 1 project, is currently reviewing the proposals and timelines put forward in its outline business case following the Children’s Services going into intervention and therefore has not been included as the expected finish date has not been finalised.