This report looks at the management by the Defence Estates Agency, of the land and property owned by the Ministry of Defence. The estate is worth some £15.3 billion, and costs £1.3 billion to run, with the MoD as one of the largest landowners in the UK with land covering some 240,000 hectares. The Estate itself consists of such facilities as barracks, depots, aircraft hangers and naval bases, as well as training grounds and ranges. Also the MoD has direct managerial responsibility for 200 sites of special scientific interest, along with responsibility for over 1600 listed buildings and monuments. The NAO recognizes the operational challenges of managing such a large utility, but commends the MoD for developing a strategy that saw contractual arrangements deliver higher quality and estate rationalization, along with improved customer satisfaction. There had been a deterioration in the estate due to shortfalls in spending, and the use of traditional methods in the procuring and managing of estate services. The selling off of surplus land has earned the MoD £1.2 billion, and five new regional contracts have been signed to improve the estate. Insufficient funding due to conflicting defence priorities may hamper long-term efficiencies, and that there is more to be done to consolidate recent cultural changes in the organization of contracts for running the estate, especially the move towards large centrally-managed contracts.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has an extensive and complex estate of some 24,000 hectares, and after the Forestry Commission, is the second largest landowner in the UK. The estate is valued at over £18 billion and costs some £3.3 billion to operate. The estate is seen as essential to the delivery of military capability and the welfare and morale of Service personnel. This report, from the Committee of Public Accounts, has taken evidence from the MoD on the standard of living accommodation, the Department's ability to prioritise estate projects effectively, and its response to staff shortages. It follows on from an NAO report (HCP 154, session 2006-7), Managing the Defence Estate: Quality and Sustainability (ISBN 9780102944679). It sets out 9 recommendations, including: more than half of single living accommodation and over 40% of family accommodation does not meet the Department's definition of high-quality accommodation and is therefore substandard; that poor accommodation has a negative impact on retention rates; there is no information on when poor accommodation is to be upgraded, with some military personnel and their families having to continue to live in substandard housing for the next 20 years; there are gaps in the Department's understanding of estate costs; the Department employs only 56% of safety works staff and 57% of quantity surveyors that it needs; that implementing energy saving measures at its' defence sites would bring environmental benefits and savings of more than £2 million annually.

The Ministry of Defence (the Department) is responsible for over £42 billion of annual expenditure. It has failed to exercise the robust financial management necessary to control its resources effectively in the long term, and there is a shortfall in planned expenditure against likely funding of up to £36 billion over the next ten years. The Department's consistent pattern of planned overspend demonstrates serious organisational failings and a dangerous culture of optimism. There are systemic failings: a tendency towards financial over-commitment, weaknesses in the financial planning processes and a division in responsibilities and accountability for financial stewardship. The Accounting Officer has not discharged his responsibility to ensure that expenditure represents value for money, and there is no explicit financial strategy linking funding to priorities. When financial savings have to be found there is then no clear basis for determining where cuts should be made. The appointment of a professionally qualified Finance Director is welcomed. The defence estate is valued at over £20 billion, and costs an estimated £2.9 billion per year to run. The built estate in the UK has been reduced by 4.3% between 1998 and 2008, achieving £3.4 billion in sale receipts. But more of the estate should have been released. The Department does not assess its estate against clear objective criteria. The Department does not collect centrally the information and data that would allow it to manage its estate in an effective way. It appears to lack urgency in its plans to improve its information base.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is one of the largest landowners in the UK, with a total estate (including land and property) valued at around £18 billion. Defence Estates (an Agency of the MoD until April 2007 and now re-integrated as part of the MoD) has responsibility for managing the defence estate, with an annual budget of £1.15 billion. The Committee's report examines the work of Defence Estates, focusing on the standard of accommodation for Service personnel and their families. The report highlights concerns about sub-standard accommodation, particularly in relation to the operation of the regional prime contracts for single living accommodation and the maintenance of service families accommodation under the housing prime contract. It argues that the provision of good quality accommodation for Service personnel and their families, modern and efficient office accommodation, and a well-maintained training estate, play a vital role in contributing to the effectiveness of our Armed Forces, particularly important given the current high tempo of operations. Overall, the report finds that although Defence Estates is doing much good work, there are considerable challenges ahead. A substantial increase in investment in the defence estate is required and the MoD must resist the temptation to take from the estates budget when the defence budget is stretched.

The Ministry of Defence, one of the largest landowners in the UK, has strengthened its estate planning and achieved significant receipts from disposal of property but the changes are not yet sufficient to drive value for money for the taxpayer rigorously. While the defence estate primarily exists to support defence capabilities, the Department has not matched its focus on operational needs with enough attention to efficient use of its estate assets and to reducing costs. This report acknowledges that, between 1998 and 2008, the MOD identified and took opportunities to rationalise that part of its UK estate not needed for training, generating £3.4 billion from the sale of surplus property. Nevertheless, over the same period the Department reduced the number of civilian and military personnel three times faster than it reduced its built estate. This raises a clear question about whether there are opportunities to reduce the estate further and secure cost savings and further disposal receipts. The NAO also concludes that the Department's process for categorising sites is rightly driven by operational requirements but it does not give sufficient weight to other factors such as how heavily a site is used, running costs, or potential income from sale. The MOD also lacks sufficient data centrally to conduct the necessary analysis to help it reduce costs in a structured way. This report identified five categories of information needed to identify the scope for further estate rationalisation: operational importance; utilisation; condition; potential value; and running costs.

This book brings to attention the history of places that have traditionally remained under-the-radar in discussions of war and the environment, through site-based studies of five training areas in southwest England and Wales: Salisbury Plain, Lulworth, Dartmoor, Sennybridge and Castlemartin. At these sites, the big events of the twentieth century are written into landscapes that absorb their impact and reflect change in intriguing ways. Here, however, environment is more than a canvas on which historical forces play out; it has an agency of its own, as the depiction of the surprising nature and robust habitats of the training areas recognises. An Environmental History of the UK Defence Estate, 1945 to the Present critically examines the gradual 'greening' of the MoD as it developed policies of military environmentalism. It includes the histories of the ghost-villages created by forced evictions, and charts the rise and fall of anti-military protest movements. It depicts heated confrontations, mass trespasses, and demands for public access alongside conservation work and training activities, situating the human histories of these sites within their environmental history, and taking the reader behind the barbed wire in the first study of its kind.

This report is the result of an extensive study that was undertaken to review the existing policy context of Ministry of Defence (MOD) disposals in England, and to advise Government on how it should seek to obtain value for money whilst having regard to the wider interest of Government. The research process involved five main areas of work - a literature search, a review of all relevant policy guidance, interviews and written consultations, seminars for property professionals and nine detailed case studies.

Drawing from military geography’s spatial roots, its embrace of dynamic systems, and integration of human and biophysical environments, this book helps in understanding the value of analyzing patterns, processes and systems, and cross-scale and multi-disciplinary ways of acting in a complex world, while making the case for a resurgence of strategic and military geography in Australia. Here, leading experts demonstrate that geography retains its relevance in clarifying the scale and dynamics of defense activities in assessments of the international, regional, national, and site impacts of changes in physical, cyber and human geographies. The cases presented show Australia contributing to a growing strategic and military geography.

The Department has addressed the £38 billion funding gap that emerged prior to 2010 between the funding it expected and the forecast cost of Defence over the following ten years. It has also cut its costs to live within a reduced budget. However, this has been achieved not just by delivering financial savings, but also by deferring some costs into future years, at the risk that these costs could increase because of the delay. The stability of the Department's financial position depends on the accuracy of a large number of assumptions it has to make, many of which have proved over-optimistic in the past, and its ability to: control its costs, achieve the significant savings anticipated in the equipment and infrastructure budgets, and manage the cost of the Department's portfolio of nuclear-related programmes.

Military Geographies is about how local space, place, environment and landscape are shaped by military presence, and about how wider geographies are touched by militarism. A book about how local space, place, environment and landscape are shaped by military presence, and about how wider geographies are touched by militarism. Sets a new agenda for the study of military geography with its critical analysis of the ways in which military control over space is legitimized. Explores the ways in which militarism and military activities control development, the use of space and our understanding of place. Focuses on military lands, establishments and personnel in contemporary peacetime settings. Uses examples from Europe, North America and Australasia. Draws on original research into the mechanisms by which the British government manages the defence estate. Illustrated with maps, plans and other figures.