Maintenance of The ‘Mod’ Estate In The 20th Century
(A Short History)

BY Michael J. Foster MIMBM, MBIFM

Foreword

Having spent almost 25 years within the Public Sector and 10 years employed within the commercial world I can consider myself fortunate to have seen and experienced many changes; this prompted me to wonder how building maintenance within the Public Sector particularly the ‘MOD’ Estate must have changed during the 20th Century.

This ‘Paper’ is a personal view based on interviews and conversations with former colleagues, Internet research and my own recollection of more recent events. Entitled, `Maintenance of the ‘MOD’ Estate in the 20th Century’ it will attempt to build a history of Property Maintenance within the Public Sector. For reasons of ‘Time Distance’ the accuracy of some of the events recorded within this short ‘Paper’ can not be fully substantiated but it is hoped that it may be of interest to those who have some responsibility for the maintenance of the Built Environment, particularly those involved with the ‘MOD’ Estate or other Government Buildings within the Public Sector.

Michael Foster MIMBM, MBIFM
Chair and Secretary of the ‘imbm-Wessex Branch’

Introduction
‘The ministry of Defence is one of the largest landowners in the country. In total, it occupies an estate equivalent to about 1% of the UK landmass. This land is vital if our Armed Forces are to carry out their responsibilities to the high standards, which we expect from them. However, there is increasing pressure for land for residential development, economic regeneration and recreation. The MOD must be able to justify the need for every piece of land it holds and to demonstrate that it is properly managed.’ (Taken from the Defence Estates Website "The Estate Strategy").

The question is often asked, "What is maintenance"? In 1964 The British Standards (BS 3811) defined maintenance as "Work undertaken in order to keep or restore every facility i.e. every part of a site, building and contents to an acceptable standard". It could also be defined as "The preservation of the existing building stock". Is maintenance necessary? This is another question often asked and could Simply be answered by saying "That the value of existing building stock can only be enhanced by being well maintained" but keeping a building well maintained does not have just a pecuniary aspect, it also has a legal one.

Various Acts of Parliament such as the "Defective Premises Act 1972" and "The Occupiers Liability Acts" became law to ensure buildings remained safe for those who occupy, use or visit them. More legislation has been enacted in recent years which place the responsibility for ‘Safe Premises’ squarely on the shoulders of "The dutyholder", although it is not intended within these pages to enter into definitions it is safe to say that a scenario could exist where responsibilities for the premises are shared between many parties.

1900 – 1913 (THE EARLY YEARS)
Maintenance of Crown Buildings in the early 1900s although organised and workable was not the complex system we know today, the majority of legislation laying down minimum standards for buildings and their maintenance were not due for another fifty years.

One of the Forts in the Solent Which protected Portsmouth Harbour?

Many buildings belonging to the War Department at the beginning of the 20th Century were built during the 18th and 19th Centuries and included some fine examples of architecture and workmanship; furthermore the construction techniques used during the preceding 200 years allowed these buildings to stand the test of time. Britain’s foreign policy during the 19th Century and its fears of being invaded led to the steady expansion of military fortifications.

Fort Nelson is one of the Forts built by Palmerston

Among the buildings that continued to be maintained by the War Department at the start of the 20th Century were a number of fortifications built to protect the Royal Dockyards. Most were constructed of clay bricks and built upon the instructions of the then Prime Minister Lord Palmerston following the recommendations of a Royal Commission set up to revue Britain’s defenses. Their construction was to counter any attempt by the French to invade Southern England. Some of the forts situated along the South Coast become known as "Palmerston’s Follies" they were probably called follies because at the time of their construction some local inhabitants seeing the gun emplacements facing inland believed they had been built facing the wrong way. At the turn of the 20th Century most land front fortifications were declared superfluous to requirements but still remained in the hands of the War Department. A number of Coast Defence Batteries continued to be used and maintained by the Admiralty until the mid-1950s when the MOD decided they were no longer required. Enthusiasts now preserve some of the surviving forts and it is due to their diligence and craftsmanship that many of these fine structures exist today.

Building maintenance during the early 1900s appeared to be more reactive or corrective than proactive and preventative and could easily be considered as ‘day to day’ or ‘emergency’ in nature. Any form of forward planning was considered by some as unnecessary. The standard of workmanship was generally quite high and the quality was such that individual craftsmen were more than happy to leave their mark somewhere on the finished structure. Many of these craftsmen were employed as casual labour; they worked under the direction of Clerks or Managers many of whom belonged to Trade Guilds or had particular craft or organizational skills. Some of these Senior Overseers acquired the titles, ‘Depot Superintendent’ or ‘Superintendent of works’, titles that existed in one form or another right upto the close of the Millennium. This relatively small but dedicated workforce of Journeyman Trades or Artisans together with the many Chandlers employed to supply materials continued to maintain the Crown Estate and War Department buildings for many years.

1914 – 1949 (TWO WORLD WARS)

The Officers Mess at the former Royal Marine Barracks Eastney built in 1867/8.

1914 saw Europe plunged into war and to ensure that Britain secured the fighting force it required, all available resources were diverted to the war effort, as a result, a number of building programmes throughout the country floundered. Many of those employed on construction or maintenance of War Department Property took the ‘Kings Shilling’ (Signed on the dotted line to fight for King and Country). Women soon found themselves aiding the war effort by taking up positions in factories left vacant by men of fighting age who had volunteered for military service. The majority of maintenance continued to be corrective in nature, very little construction or refurbishment took place during this period unless it was absolutely necessary and beneficial to the war effort.

As a result of the 1914 - 1918 War many of the craftsmen who had volunteered to fight in Europe never returned; of those artisans who did returned, only a percentage were re-employed maintaining property owned by the War Department. Although not impoverished, by the early 1920’s Britain had begun to suffer from inflation and had entered a period of economic and industrial depression made worse by social unrest.

Little or no progress had been made during the depression to establish a co-ordinated and effective regime for building maintenance. By the time the country had pulled itself out of the economic doldrums those responsible for the upkeep of Crown Property and Military Establishments had taken a serious look at the way in which their building stock had been managed and maintained during the depression. By the end of the 1920s the Royal Navy, British Army and the fledgling Royal Flying Corp (RAF) had once again secured civilian workers to carry out minor new works and essential Repairs.

Political events across the English Channel during the mid-1930s resulted in the creation or expansion of a number of military establishments around the country. Among the establishments that received particular attention were those employed for research into such sciences as hydrodynamics, radio and the revolutionary science of radar.

1939 saw the start of ‘The Second World War’ and advances in military hardware especially aircraft meant that by the early 1940s Britain had been placed in the position of defending herself against air strikes by enemy bombers. The various works departments employed by the armed services were kept constantly busy ensuring that military establishments remained in a state of active service. Innovation was now the name of the game and necessity became the mother of invention. Work methods changed, not necessarily by choice but by the dictation of events.

1950 - 1969 (THE START OF CHANGE)
Following the 2nd World War Britain embarked on a re-building programme to house the may thousands left homeless as the result of enemy bombing. A number of local authorities considered prefabrication using cheap, quick and easily constructed accommodation as the answer to the replenishment of their building stock. Britain’s armed forces also adopted a similar programme of re-build; the ‘Prefab’ as it was known was even considered by the War Department as a means of satisfying their need to provide training facilities and married quarters for its armed forces.

A former Research Establishment

The mid-1950s saw the continued use of a civilian workforce carrying out maintenance work for all three branches of the Armed Services. The biggest employer along the South coast was the Navy Works Department, the British Army and the Royal Air Force had similar workforces maintaining their military bases and airfields. The acquisition of many new buildings of conventional brick construction a few years earlier had already secured the future of the many trades employed on building maintenance within Britain’s Naval, Military and Research Establishments.

The introduction of a Forward Planning Register for property maintenance in the late 1950s or early 1960s meant that essential maintenance tasks could be scheduled or programmed to take place over a number of years. This enabled the financial commitment for a certain number of years to be known in advance (Was this the beginning of what is now affectionately known as ‘Life Cycle Costing’?). The need to have buildings and their services regularly maintained had, by this time, been acknowledged as an essential part of ‘Property Management’.

Various Acts passed by parliament during the 1950s and 1960s laid down minimum standards for building construction and maintenance, such legislation included The Housing Acts 1957 & 1969; The Public Health Act 1961; Factories Act 1961; The Offices, Shops and Railways Act 1963 and The Asbestos Regulations 1969. Reference is made in a number of these Acts to a building being `Properly Maintained’. The introduction of these various Acts and Regulations resulted in ‘A Duty of Care’ being placed on employers and landlords. (Although "Crown Immunity" existed the indication was that the Public Sector would eventually decide to comply with the spirit of the various Legislative Acts passed by Parliament).

One of the former Military Establishments which was maintained by the MPBW during the 1960s

The Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (MPBW) or more affectionately referred to by their military clients as "The Ministry of Public Blunders and Wonders" emerged as the single organisation set up to replace the various works departments. It brought Building Maintenance to the fore and the use of a ‘Planned Maintenance Log Book System’ which had already been in limited use for some considerable period of time, became an effective tool for assessing and recording the ‘State of Repair’ of all Property belonging to the MOD Estate.

Maintenance cards or Logs were often used by the Armed Services to record the maintenance carried out on their military equipment, it is probable therefore that the logbook which formed part of the early Mechanical and Electrical Planned Maintenance System was based upon this established system. Although it is unclear exactly when the logbook was first introduced it is believed that the Royal Air Force was predominately responsible for its adaptation for use by its Works Department to record maintenance inspection on installed building services. In the early days the logbook was also used as a ‘mini-asset register’ containing information about each item of plant or service being maintained. The logbook pages recorded not only the frequency of service visits but also the defects found and the remedial action taken.

The Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (MPBW) not only had responsibility for carrying out building and maintenance work on behalf of the ‘Ministry of Defence’ during the 1960’s it also held the purse strings, it was the MPBW rather than its MOD Clients who made decisions on expenditure. This made the MPBW a major player in the maintenance business. Money for the upkeep of the MOD Estate had to be approved by Parliament and become known as the ‘Vote’. Unfortunately history has proved time and time again, that during times of financial restraint the funds made available for maintenance projects always appeared to be a victim of cutbacks and there was no reason to believe that property maintenance within the Public Sector would be any different.

THE 1970s AND 1980s
The large number of workmen employed by the MPBW during the 1960s and early 1970s had enabled it to undertake not only property maintenance but also minor and major new works including ‘New Build’. However with maintenance costs increasing on a larger scale than expected and the need to demonstrate value for money to its political bosses meant that more changes lay ahead for the Ministry, these changes would eventually see the demise of its Directly Employed Labour Force.

Typical former Barrack Block maintained by the DoE/PSA in the 1970s.

In early 1970s the organisation responsible for construction and maintenance on behalf of the ‘MoD’ Estate had change its identity once again and now operated under the control of the Department of the Environment (DoE). At the same time a study took place to determine whether the Department’s Directly Employed Labour Force (DEL) could become more efficient and accountable. As a result, special teams of Trade Foremen were set up and trained in the use of a system which it was hoped would prove the effectiveness of ‘DEL’, unfortunately the system called ‘DELPAC’ short for ‘Directly Employed Labour Planning And Control’ proved just the opposite. DELPAC’s unpopularity grew among some of the direct labour force when it was rumoured that the system or one similar had been introduced and operated in the United States where it was believed to have led to staff reductions within those industries that had adopted it. (Whether the rumour was true is unsure but the next two decades would see the DEL’s fears about job losses being well founded).

The 1970s saw the introduction of the ‘Health and Safety at Work Act’, a major event in Health and Safety. This Act of Parliament not only placed a ‘Duty of Care’ upon Management but also upon each individual employee. It directly lead to a change in work practices together with an inevitable increase in cost which quite often led to a conflict between ‘The Safety Professional’ and those who considered the introduction of any additional safety legislation as yet another unnecessary interference and financial burden placed on industry. Mid-1970 saw another change; a new agency was set up solely to manage the maintenance, refurbishment and environment of the MOD Estate. This new agency was called The ‘Property Services Agency’ (PSA). (This new agency would have a major influence on the direction in which Building Maintenance Management within the Public Sector would go).

Various studies and comparative estimating schemes took place during the 1970s to test the competitiveness of the directly employed labour force with that of the private sector the result of the studies appeared to indicate that the private sector had proved more competitive than the DEL. This opened the door for the use of more contractors in preference to the Agency’s own direct labour force.

The early 1980s saw the wide spread use of a series of Engineering Guides introduced by the PSA and generally adopted as the bible for work relating to construction, design and maintenance. The most comprehensive of these was the ‘Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Guide’ (MEEG) pronounced ‘MEG’; this set of guides was introduced by the ‘Directorate of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services’ (DMEES) and numbered some eight volumes in size. These guides covered every task associated with the maintenance of equipment and services in use within the MOD Estate.

A group of Standard Specifications had also been produced by the PSA and published by the ‘Crown Publishers’. The Standard Specs together with the ‘MEEG’ publications were much sought after and until quite recently had been considered by many as the definitive guide for those involved within the construction, engineering and building maintenance industries. A comprehensive programme of ‘Building Inspections’ introduced to record the structural condition of the MOD’s Building Stock by the Building & Civil Engineering section of the PSA also identified defects relating to installed mechanical and electrical services. These inspections not only assisted the PSA in formulating a ‘Schedule of Rolling Maintenance’ it also identified those buildings requiring immediate attention.

A typical Gun emplacement which protected the entrance to one of the Royal Dockyards in bygone days.

A defence review carried out in the early 1980s by the Government of the day resulted in a reduction within the armed services culminating in the rundown and eventual closure of some establishments. The cost effectiveness of the ‘PSA’ was in question and it appeared inevitable to many that its days were numbered. The mid-late 1980s saw an investigation into possible corruption within the PSA and rumour of its possible closure was also spreading through the ranks of its employees, these rumours continued until it was officially announced that PSA Building Management would be sold.

‘In October 1989, Ministers decided that the activities of PSA Services should be transferred to the private sector. They stated that, as PSA Building Management had no long term future in the public sector, they would prefer it to be sold unless closure was cheaper’. (Taken from UK National Audit Office Press Notice8/96, ‘Notes for Editors’ published January 1996).

THE 1990s (PRIVATISATION AND BEYOND)
At the start of the 1990s a programme of mass Voluntary Early Retirement or Redundancy (VER) had been established in order to streamline the agency for sell-off to the private sector. Between April 1990 and September 1993 the workforce employed by the PSA was reduced from 15,000 to 6,700. By October 1993 the privatisation was complete and the PSA no longer existed as a government agency, a new organisation the ‘Defence Works Services’ (DWS) had been set up at Sutton Coldfield to oversee all building and maintenance work for the MOD Estate.

With the demise of the PSA the ‘Defence Works Services’ continued to use the various systems set up by its predecessors for the up-keep of ‘Crown Property’ and the MOD Estate. Many of the newly privatised (ex PSA) companies continued to carry out work for The Defence Works Services Organisation in the role of either ‘Works Services Manager’ (WSM) or ‘Establishment Works Consultant’ (EWC) titles introduced by the PSA in the late 80`s in an attempt to modernise.

The mid-late 1990s saw another change in the name of the organisation responsible for the upkeep of the MOD Estate. The Defence Works Services Organisation amalgamated with the Defence Lands Service and a Central Policy Division of MOD and became known as the ‘Defence Estates Organisation’ (DEO). In 1999 it changed yet again and became ‘Defence Estates’ (DE), at last it was beginning to distance itself from the PSA`s influence. During this same period many of the newly privatised ‘WSM’ companies were introducing the ‘Operational and Maintenance’ contract (O&M). This type of contract enabled the ‘WSM’ to lay the majority of the ‘Preventative Planned Maintenance’ (PPM) on the shoulders of a single Sub-Contractor. The ‘Works Services Manager’ still had overall responsibility for ensuring that maintenance was carried out and was still answerable to ‘Defence Estates’.

The 1990s also saw the introduction of a new service provider within the building maintenance industry ‘The Facilities Management Company’. These new style companies, many of which had evolved from the privatised businesses of the former ‘PSA’ offered ‘Total’ Facilities Management to their clientele by carrying out all those non-core activities previously provided ‘in-house’. Many of these (former PSA) companies found that they had to adapt and become more commercially aware to enable them to survive in the highly competitive arena of Maintenance and Building Management.

Acknowledgements: -

Acknowledgement is given to the following individuals and organisations that provided much of the information contained in this ‘Paper’. Additionally where Copyright exists this too is acknowledged.

UK National Audit Office (Copyright); Defence Estates (Copyright); Palmerston Forts Society (Particularly Mr David Moore, Webmaster ARGONET); Linda Evans (an article entitled Palmerston’s Folly); And many former work Colleagues.

This ‘Paper’ is Copyright and must not be copied in part or in whole without the permission of the author
and must include all other acknowledgements and copyrights.