Major Works are, in most cases, the single biggest financial event in the life of a building. Whether it’s a roof replacement, a lift overhaul, facade remediation, or a full communal services upgrade, the sums involved are significant and it’s vital that those Major Works work.
Over the course of two decades in this industry, I’ve seen Major Works that have been hugely successful, and others that haven’t. And I believe the difference is simple. It’s all in the planning.
Buildings where Major Works run smoothly are buildings where the work is foreseen, costs are appropriately apportioned, and decision-making is proactive rather than reactive, all thanks to the Planned Maintenance Programme.
Most managed properties have one. But the problem we see time and again is that in too many cases, the Planned Maintenance Programme is treated as a piece of paper rather than a practice. It’s produced out of obligation, filed, and consulted only when something has already gone wrong.
What a Planned Maintenance Programme Is and What It Could Be
A Planned Maintenance Programme is an assessment of a building’s condition, combined with expenditure forecasting across a ten to thirty-year horizon. It maps roofs, elevations, communal M&E, lifts, doors, and every other significant building element, assigning condition ratings, residual life estimates, and projected replacement costs.
And a robust, living planned maintenance programme can be one of the most powerful pieces of information in the building manager’s toolkit.
But the key word here is ‘living’. A Planned Maintenance Programme produced three years ago and not reviewed since, is just a dusty document. Buildings change, regulations change, and a real PMP changes in step. The PMP can only ever be as good as the data feeding it, and only useful if it is regularly revisited, updated and used as the plan for keeping a building healthy. At the moment, for many buildings, it simply is not.
The Budgetary Planning Problem
Reactive Major Works cost more and deliver less. Buildings maintained without an active plan deteriorate over the years, until a crisis arrives, invariably at the worst possible moment and at the highest possible cost. And a massive factor that contributes to this problem is that without a living PMP, it is almost impossible to calculate service charges. This is intensified by the fact that building owners and managers, understandably, tend to err on the side of attractively low rates, leaving their reserves dangerously underfunded.
A well-maintained Planned Maintenance Programme goes hand-in hand with a well-constructed Capital Expenditure plan. And that converts unknown future cost into a managed, foreseeable budget. This can be communicated to leaseholders, and used to drive preventative works rather than react to emergencies. The difference between planned and reactive spend is usually significant. In the case of Major Works it can be the difference between a protected asset and a financial crisis.
The Regulatory Picture
And the need for a living PMP goes beyond financial planning. A well-evidenced Planned Maintenance Programme is now a vital compliance document as well as a financial one. The Building Safety Regulator expects responsible parties to demonstrate an ongoing, reliable plan for identifying and remediating building issues. They want to see it being used, acted-upon and central to the life of the building.
A document that has been filed and forgotten, that hasn’t been updated in-line with changes to the building, simply will not meet that expectation. Being in-step with the BSR means maintaining a programme that is reviewed regularly, updated when conditions change, and used as a live management tool rather than something which is seen as a tiresome tick-box exercise.
What Good Looks Like
The best-run buildings I’ve seen have a current, regularly reviewed Planned Maintenance Programme at the centre of every Major Works decision. It’s the foundation from which everything else flows. It means that managing agents, surveyors, designers, and leaseholders are all clear on what to expect. It removes siloes, and ensures no decisions are made in isolation. Crucially, you can’t manage what you can’t see, but the Planned Maintenance Programme gives you full visibility.
Section 20 consultation is built into the programme from the outset, not bolted on at the end when it becomes a legal obstacle and a financial threat. Leaseholders can see the plan, understand the rationale, and trust the numbers, because those numbers are rock-solid and kept up to date. Major works arrive as part of a managed programme, not as a surprise.
A Planned Maintenance Programme won’t remove every uncertainty that comes with running a building. But it means that when decisions are made, they’re founded on knowledge rather than guesswork. It seems to me that this is what good stewardship looks like – keeping people safe, protecting the value of an important asset, and ensuring the legacy of the building for the people and communities it was built to serve.
Written by Julian Davies MRICS, MFPWS, MPTS. Chief Executive Officer, Earl Kendrick Property & Construction Consultancy.
