Campus Master Plan
Capital Prioritisation Framework
2012-2014
20 February 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Part 1 - Overview of UC’s Built Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 4
Context – the Current State ................................................................................................................ 5
Current understanding of our buildings ............................................................................................. 6
Built space and its utilisation .............................................................................................................. 7
Risks – Buildings and Infrastructure.................................................................................................... 8
Campus Master Planning Capital Prioritisation Principles ................................................................ 10
Part 2 - Overarching Issues (affecting more than one part of the CMPF) ............................................ 12
UCSA Building.................................................................................................................................... 12
College of Education ......................................................................................................................... 12
Rutherford and Von Haast Buildings................................................................................................. 13
Part 3 – Capital Priorities 2012 to 2014 ................................................................................................ 14
1. Campus Heart and Gateway ..................................................................................................... 14
2. Service Hubs .............................................................................................................................. 16
3. Way-finding ............................................................................................................................... 17
4. Academic & Service Unit Precincts ........................................................................................... 19
5. Events and Recreation Precinct ................................................................................................ 21
6. Sports and Fitness Precinct ....................................................................................................... 22
7. Te Ao Marama Precinct............................................................................................................. 23
8. Cultural Amenities..................................................................................................................... 24
9. Research and Industry Precinct ................................................................................................ 25
10.
Accommodation Precinct ...................................................................................................... 25
11.
Other Relevant CMPF Capital Priorities ................................................................................ 26
12.
Non-CMPF Betterment and Refurbishment work ................................................................ 27
13.
Non-CMPF Other/Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 28
Part 4 - Summary & Overview............................................................................................................... 29
Annex - College of Education Relocation – Cost Model........................................................................ 30
Page 2 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Introduction
Investment in buildings and associated infrastructure is typically done on a 30-50 year basis. Getting
it wrong is not only a waste of money, but it can inhibit the development, effectiveness and
operation of an organisation for as long as the building exists.
It is therefore appropriate to have a campus master plan that articulates current and future
requirements and that tries to paint a coherent vision for built infrastructure to avoid mistakes and
to maximise outcomes from scarce capital.
The Campus Master Plan (in draft and due for completion in March 2012) outlines principles and a
high level planning vision to guide the development of the University’s built infrastructure over the
next 20-30 years.
To prevent the Campus Master Plan from becoming quickly dated, the analysis around how to
develop built infrastructure in line with its vision will sit in a separate companion document – the
Campus Master Plan Capital Prioritisation Framework. Where the Campus Master Plan may be
reviewed and updated every 5-10 years, the Capital Prioritisation Framework will be reviewed every
one or two years in line with changing priorities, affordability and emerging opportunities and risks.
One thing that most campus master plans have in common is that they are developed in an
environment where there are sufficiently few unknowns or risks that the organisation is able to
articulate a long term vision that has a reasonable chance of actually being realised.
The Campus Master Plan and this Capital Prioritisation Framework are being developed at a point in
time where the University of Canterbury has so many unknowns around its planning, that trying to
confidently define a detailed vision for the University’s built infrastructure is problematic at best and
impractical at worst. Specifically:




Post-earthquake engineering assessments are not yet completed on all of our building stock
and, until they have been completed, we are unable to say which buildings will and won’t be
part of our long term building stock. We won’t have completed this analysis until well into
2012.
It is not yet clear what insurance will and won’t pay for in building remediation relating to
earthquakes prior to November 2011. If insurance will only pay to bring buildings up to preearthquake building code requirements, then this will produce a very different set of
building outcomes and costs for the University than if insurance is required to bring
buildings up to revised code requirements. It is possible that we won’t have a clear answer
on this during 2012 if the matter has to be resolved through the courts.
Earthquake activity has not yet ceased and may not cease for quite some time. Our
insurance policy changed in December 2011 and UC will now bear a much greater cost of
repairs associated with future events. We don’t know what this will be (if anything).
The capital funding envelope for infrastructure development cannot be defined with any
certainty for 2012 or following years until enrolment numbers are known and until issues
around Government financial support are known.
As a consequence of the above factors, the current version of the Campus Master Plan will be
developed as a guiding document that identifies the key planning principles in any future
development and provides a framework to accommodate the long lead in time planning
assumptions that need to be made as key damaged buildings are addressed or replaced. It is likely
to require updating later in 2012 as issues and options around built infrastructure become better
understood.
We cannot, however, stop work repairing, maintaining and developing our built infrastructure. We
have significant and urgent capital priorities that we must be addressing now. This document takes
the work done to date on the Campus Master Plan and uses the principles and vision developed for
Page 3 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
it to outline a set of capital priorities for 2012 to give Senior Management Team and Council
confidence that expenditure this year is sensible and aligned with long term priorities.
This document will be updated ahead of the budget setting process for 2013 and will almost
certainly require updating again around the budget setting process for 2014.
Timeframes and budget allocations in this document are indicative only and subject to revision as
detailed design and planning work proceeds. Priorities may also change as University needs change
or new opportunities present themselves. Budget allocations for 2012 currently exceed what is
available in the 2012 capital budget by around $3m and will require reprioritisation if additional
capital funds cannot be made available.
This document should be read alongside the Technology Investment Roadmap (TIR). Every dollar
that will be spent on capital for the University is accounted for in one way or another in this
document or the TIR. This document and the TIR will be used to inform the development of an Asset
Management Plan in 2012 that will detail how capital assets are managed through their economic
life to maximise financial and non-financial returns on investment.
Contributors to the Campus Master Plan Capital Prioritisation Framework include the members of
the Campus Master Plan Working Group and Campus Master Plan Reference Group.
CMP Working Group:
Chris Whelan
Nello Angerilli
Ian Town
Peter Molony
Dave Lang
Kerry Stewart
Chris Hawker
Scott Hoare
Rob Oudshoorn
Guy Cleverley, CCM Architects
Sue McKnight
Yvonne Shanahan
Page 4 of 38
2012-2014
CMP Reference Group
Dr Rod Carr
University of Canterbury Senior Management Team
Amanda Morris
Andy Keiller
Chris Whelan
Chris Hawker
Dave Lang
Heather Jenks
Herbert Thomas
Jarg Pettinga
Kohan McNab
Les Oxley
Lindsey Conner
Maxim Millen
Niki Davis
Patrick Neill
Peter Molony
Rachael Linehan
Rob Oudshoorn
Simon Dorset
Tim Bell
Wayne Riggall
Wendy Lawson
Toby Pizey
Bree Loverich
Ian Culpan
Kate Rawlings
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Part 1 - Overview of UC’s Built Infrastructure
Context – the Current State
The table below shows the University of Canterbury Replacement value based on the CBRE Feb 2011
valuation along with their estimate of average life remaining and the calculated theoretical value
which is eroded each year. The theoretical amount UC should be spending to maintain the value of
its assets is $57.9m the capital expenditure allocated to this asset class in 2012 is $24m therefore an
additional $34m is required.
Replacement
Value
Average
(Feb 2011)
years life
Asset Class (those that depreciate only)
$m
remaining
Structures (actual buildings)
363.9
50
Services (heat, water, power, air, etc)
283.6
19
Building Fitouts (includes furnishings)
247.8
10
Building Furnishings (carpet, curtains, etc)
43.7
9
Equipment *
64.2
10.7
Furniture*
1.1
5.0
Vehicles*
1.9
5.0
TOTAL
1,006.1
* Value not estimated by CBRE, average life based on the pool of assets
Annual
Replacement
value eroded
$m
7.3
14.7
24.5
4.8
6.0
0.2
0.4
57.9
In 2011 the capital allocation for expenditure on the asset classes above was $33.3m against an
overall capital budget of $65.3m (51%). In 2012 the allocation for expenditure on the same asset
classes is $24.0m against an overall capital budget of $45.0m (53%).
For 2012, $7.9m of the $24.0m capital relates to development of new assets and $16.1m to
maintaining, refurbishing and prolonging the life of existing assets. In addition, we are spending
around $1.9m of operating expenditure on planned and reactive maintenance with an additional
$2.4m on trades and maintenance staff. The $16.1m of capital and $4.3m of operating expenditure
equals $20.4m of planned cumulative expenditure on existing buildings in 2012.
Insurance funded remediation will inflate this amount as work is done to repair and, in some cases,
improve structures, services and fit-outs. The insurance component may be as much as $200m over
the next 3-6 years, but it is not possible to reliably estimate the proportion of that which will return
buildings back to their pre-September 2010 value versus the proportion that will produce either an
increased building value and/or an extended building life expectancy.
If UC’s level of expenditure on existing building infrastructure continues for an extended period, we
run a risk of significantly running down the standard of our buildings, their services and their fittings
and furnishings – particularly once insurance related remediation and betterment work concludes
and the full cost of improvements will be borne by UC.
Page 5 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Current understanding of our buildings
Key terms:



Insurance work – repair work that will definitely be paid for by insurance.
Betterment work – work that may be paid for by insurance where a building must be
strengthened or brought in line with other legislative requirements (fire protection systems,
diabled egress) to achieve code compliance or that may be paid for by UC where we want to
strengthen a building to a level that will not be covered by insurance.
Other capital work – work that does not relate to insurance or betterment but that may be
done at the same time as insurance and betterment work to refurbish or repurpose
buildings and their spaces.
Annex 1 shows an overview of what we currently know about our major buildings – as at the end of
January 2012. The table on that page gives some indication of the key challenges facing the
University in capital planning. Specifically:

Though we have undertaken Building Calculation Assessments (BCAs) on all our major
buildings, we have not completed detailed engineering assessments on a number of our key
buildings (including Registry and UCSA). Until these detailed assessments are completed we
will not be able to give a reliable picture of insurance work, betterment work and other
capital work.

There continues to be some uncertainty around what insurance will and won’t pay for. At
present, our insurer is taking the line that it is only required to bring earthquake prone
(buildings below 33% of current code) up to current code compliance (above 67% of current
code). As councils cannot compel building owners to strengthen buildings above 33% of
current code, the insurer is taking the line that it is not required to strengthen buildings
above 33% of current code. Note that an assessment of a building’s strength for the
purposes of this exercise is based on its strength post-earthquakes – reflecting weakening
that may have been caused during earthquakes. Until this interpretation of what the insurer
will and won’t cover has been tested, there will continue to be uncertainty around what
work must take place around betterment and who will be liable for paying for it.

It is not clear how quickly we will need to carry out betterment work. Our insurers are likely
to want to settle claims as quickly as possible. We are going to want to do as much
betterment and other capital works as possible around insurance funded work as the
University takes significant financial advantage from aligning upgrade work with remediation
work allowing the contractors overhead and project management costs to be largely
covered by the insurance claim. In a perfect world, we might want to stagger betterment
and other associated capital work over the next decade to ensure the portion we are funding
can be covered within existing capital allocations and to avoid making too many campus
buildings unavailable for extended periods while they are worked on. In reality, we are
probably going to have to do most or all of this over the next 3-4 years (a) to assure staff and
students that our campus is a safe place to work and study, and (b) to close out insurance
claims in line with insurance company expectations.
With the above in mind, there is significant uncertainty around how much we need to ringfence in
capital for betterment. Our current best guesstimate is an amount somewhere between $50m and
$100m spread over 4-10 years.
Page 6 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Built space and its utilisation
At present the University has 234,912 sq/m of floor space on the Ilam Campus and another 33,610
sq/m on the Dovedale Campus. This 268,522 sq/m excludes buildings that have been demolished
(Engineering Mushroom and Siemon) or that are currently likely to be demolished (Te Pourewa
[4,980 sq/m] and Science Lecture Theatres [4,043 sq/m]).
Based on TEFMA1 averages, around 65% of the floor space can be assessed as Useable Floor Space
(UFA) – floor area measured from the inside face of the walls and deducting all the common use
areas and non-habitable areas such as lifts, stairs, service ducts and plant rooms. Of the UFA,
152,692 sq/m are at Ilam and 21,846 sq/m at Dovedale.
Space utilisation calculations are currently complicated given the drop in student numbers and the
number of buildings currently out of service, however it is clear we currently have at least 20-30%
more floor space than bench-marking parameters suggest that we may need in the long term.
The most recent survey of the use of teaching space (semester 2, 2011) found utilisation rates of
47% compared with TEFMA best practice standards of 75%. It suggested that the University could
continue meeting teaching needs with 27 less spaces than are currently available (139 rooms). This
needs to be taken with a degree of caution given it is based on a survey conducted during a period
when rolls were significantly down from what might be regarded as the long-term norm. In fact the
Timetabling Project has found that there is a shortage of teaching spaces that hold 80-120 students.
A long term objective of the Campus Master Plan is to consolidate the University’s Ilam Campus
activities by re-locating the College of Education to the Ilam Campus and to repurpose the Dovedale
Campus.
An analysis of space requirements based on EFTS of 14,500 using TEFMA averages for Australasian
tertiary education institutions suggests the following based on the 152,692 usable sq/m at Ilam:






Column a shows the average percentage that academic space, centrally timetabled space
and library space makes up on an Australasian campus. Percentages in brackets are the
minimum numbers reported for institutions in Australasia.
Column b shows the standard sq/m per EFTS that a university allows for academic space,
centrally timetabled space and library space.
Column c shows how much floor space the University is likely to have in five years in the
WORST CASE. The WORST CASE scenario assumes the 7,225 sq/m of Kirkwood village is
removed from centrally timetabled teaching, but that UC retains the two branch libraries –
Law and EPS as learning spaces.
Column d shows actual floor space at Ilam right now. This excludes all demolished buildings
and those currently being considered for demolition (Siemon, Mushroom, and the Science
Lecture Theatres), and assumes that the EPS library continues to exist (1,818 sq/m of library
space).
Column e shows how much floor space the University might reasonably expect by
multiplying total floor space at Ilam by the TEFMA average percentage shown in column a.
Column f shows how much floor space the University might reasonably expect multiplying
total floor space at Ilam by the TEFMA standard sq/m per EFTS shown in column b.
1
Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) – the Australasian organisation of tertiary
education institutions’ facilities managers.
Page 7 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Both scenarios (NOW and
WORST CASE) assume all UoC
students studying in Christchurch
are on the Ilam Campus
a
TEFMA
Standard
% of all
usable
space
b
TEFMA
Standard
sq/m per
EFTS
c
Actual Floor
Space Ilam sq/m
5 Years from
now WORST
CASE
d
Actual Floor
Space Ilam
sq/m NOW
e=152,700 / a
TEFMA
Average Floor
Space sq/m
f=EFTS x b
TEFMA
Average
Target sq/m
on current
EFTS
Academic Space (teaching,
research, offices, support,
teaching rooms & labs)
Centrally timetabled teaching
spaces (lecture theatres, seminar
& tutorial rooms)
Library space
47.0%
(42%)
3.50
53,785
53,785
71,769
54,138
9.4%
(3.2%)
0.93
9,675
16,950
14,353
14,385
8.5%
(3.6%)
0.91
13,193
13,193
12,975
13,195
For long term planning purposes this suggests the following:


Through better space utilisation, the development of space allocation standards and some
reconfiguration of existing spaces UC can plan to accommodate the College of Education on
the Ilam Campus without a need for any new buildings.
UC should probably plan on either retaining the Kirkwood Village indefinitely or replacing it,
at some point in future, with another 4,000 sq/m of lecture, seminar and tutorial space once
we remove it. Either way, probably UC has several years before a decision is required on this
– though the Timetabling Project has shown that we need more teaching spaces in the 80120 student range. Another factor in this decision will be the extent to which ‘temporary’
buildings should remain a long term solution for the University.
Risks – Buildings and Infrastructure
The following key risks exist around the University’s buildings and infrastructure:
Organisation Level Risks (If these risks come to pass, the University’s ability to operate and/or its reputation will be severely
compromised)
Risk
Impact
Mitigations
Investment
Workstream
Risk: The primary data centre is
destroyed or is unable to operate
for an extended period.
The majority of the
University’s information will
be unavailable.
Upgrade or replace the current
secondary data centre to have the
same capabilities of the primary data
centre, with real time replication and
fall over capability.
Butterfly Wing
Refurbishment &
Second Primary Data
Centre (2012)
Protect the current analogue
telephone exchange and consider a
strategy for the future provision of the
telephony service
Upgrade the
environment the
houses the
Telephone exchange
to minimise potential
loss or disruption.
Most functions will be
unable to operate.
All files will be
inaccessible.
The University’s telephones all
depend upon equipment in one
room of the Butterfly Wing of the
ICT Building.
Risk: the telephony equipment or
the room housing it, or the wiring
either side of it, is lost.
Risk: Another major earthquake.
Page 8 of 38
2012-2014
The University will be
unable to communicate
over both traditional copper
phone lines and the voice
over internet protocol
(VOIP) phones.
Develop a unified
communications
strategy
Loss of life or serious injury
of those in or around
Ensure all buildings are strengthened
so they are low risk, replaced or
Betterment &
Refurbishment (2012
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
buildings.
demolished in the shortest feasible
timeframe in line with Campus Master
Planning Capital Prioritisation
Principles.
Ensure emergency communication
systems and protocols are in place
and effective
Ensure UC emergency management
capability is maintained at a high level
and facilities and services are
resourced appropriately including
fitout of CER room at the EOC.
Risk: Students and staff perceive
our buildings as unsafe in light of
the potential for further significant
aftershocks.
Recruitment and retention
of staff and students.
Risk: Loss of the boiler during
winter.
If the boiler fails part or all
of the campus will need to
be closed until it is
repaired.
Boiler Controls are obsolete and
parts cannot be easily sourced.
No use/occupancy of high risk
buildings.
A clear plan to improve all medium
risk buildings within 3 years to a point
where we believe they will protect
people’s lives and wellbeing in a
maximum credible event.
Upgrade boiler controls over summer
2011/12
and outyears)
Security call
points/mass
communication
system (2012).
Install IT and
communications
systems in the EOC
as necessary.
Betterment &
Refurbishment (2012
and outyears)
Boiler Controls (2012)
Local Risks (If these come to pass a number of people or a part of the organisation will be affected)
Risk
Impact
Mitigations
Investment
Workstream
Risk: Large numbers of students
move between Dovedale and Ilam
campuses several times a day
crossing the busy Ilam and
Waimari Roads. There is a
reasonable chance of an accident
– a chance that will be
compounded as we begin using
the Dovedale Village for
decanting staff in buildings as
they are remediated on the Ilam
Campus.
Serious injury or loss of life
for staff or students
Continue working with the Council to
upgrade Ilam Rd and to review
crossing at Waimari roads to improve
pedestrian safety
Contribute to the
upgrade of Ilam Road
to take advantage of
the “University Zone”
opportunies.
Risk: Power is lost to parts of the
campus or the entire campus for
an extended period of time
Loss of power for several
hours will cause up to
$50,000 of damage to
electron microscopes.
Identify options to move Commerce
to permanent accommodation
elsewhere on the Ilam Campus within
the next year so Kirkwood Village
becomes the primary site for
decanting staff and students.
Loss of power for an hour
or more will compromise
freezer storage in SBS.
Page 9 of 38
2012-2014
Consider the risk of loss of power
against the cost of emergency
standby generation in 2012 and
invest in emergency generators
where the risk is assessed significant
enough.
Emergency Standby
Generation (2012)
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Campus Master Planning Capital Prioritisation Principles
All investment in facilities, plant and equipment will be in line with the overall Campus Master
Planning Framework vision and design principles. However, in an environment where capital is
severely constrained, it is necessary to apply a number of other prioritisation principles for the 2012
to 2014 years to ensure we get the best return from our investment.
In general, all known capital allocations that will be funded during the 2012 to 2014 period stem
from one or more of the following:



Prolonging: Expenditure on extending the life of existing assets - refurbishment,
repurposing, reconfiguration, modernising, carrying out earthquake related repairs and/or
doing earthquake strengthening.
Replacing: Expenditure replacing existing assets – replacing, upgrading, relocating and/or
expanding them.
Adding: Expenditure on adding or enhancing/improving buildings and equipment to realise
opportunities, improve resilience, mitigate/manage risks or to address deficiencies with the
existing capital asset base.
Prioritisation Principle 1: We will prioritise the majority of our capital for repairing, strengthening or
replacing essential buildings and infrastructure.
For purposes of prolonging the life of existing buildings, we will only carry out earthquake repairs
and/or undertake earthquake strengthening of a building where:






There is an ongoing business requirement for the building (either as is, or
reconfigured/repurposed)
It can meet the standard that indicates it should survive a ‘maximum credible event’.
It meets, or after remediation, will be rated ‘low risk’ per the current building code, or where
the building cannot be economically brought up to this standard, we can make sufficient
changes to ensure the safety of occupants and those in proximity to the building in a
‘maximum credible event’.
It can be brought up to a standard for an amount that is in proportion to the remaining
economic value of the building.
The duplication of space for activities that are already accommodated on campus will be
avoided.
The same or less money could not be spent on reconfiguring or constructing another
building that would meet needs as well or better.
Wherever we are undertaking earthquake repairs and/or earthquake strengthening that is funded by
insurance, we will carry out other ‘prolonging work’ (maintenance, refurbishment modernising,
repurposing, etc) concurrently wherever this means that the cost of prolonging work will be
significantly lower (30% or more) than would have otherwise been the case.
Prioritisation Principle 2: We will prioritise the remainder of our capital for initiatives that:



Directly and significantly contribute to returning student numbers back to pre-quake levels
by improving the overall student experience and/or the perceived value of a UC
qualification.
Materially address the University’s priorities for learning, teaching, and research.
Provide a net financial return well within the life of the investment with a low to moderate
risk profile.
Page 10 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework


Replace assets that have reached the end of their life where not doing so will significantly
impact on the operation of the University, or some aspect of learning, teaching or research.
Mitigate risks that, if realised, would severely compromise the University’s ability to operate,
or its ability to ensure a safe and healthy environment, or that would significantly adversely
affect the University’s reputation or brand.
Where we consider capital funding requests, we will prefer options that avoid growing our built
infrastructure.
We assume that capital will be severely constrained for the next 3-5 years. It costs around $4,000 to
$7,000 per sq/m to construct new space and, at an average annual operating cost of around $143
per sq/m of space, it costs nearly as much again to maintain space over the 30-50 year life of a
building.
By contrast, it costs around $1,000 to $2,000 per sq/m to reconfigure existing space and $0 to $500
to improve utilisation of existing space.
Therefore, in analysing options for addressing building and infrastructure requirements we will
prefer the following:
1. Best option: Make better use of existing space.
2. Second best option: Repurpose and reconfigure existing buildings
3. Third best option: Lease or share facilities with other organisations in suitable proximity to
the Ilam Campus and/or utilise innovative funding strategies
4. Fourth best option: Replace existing buildings where they are no longer required
5. Fifth best option: Create multi-purpose space to reduce the amount of new floorspace
required by combining requirements.
6. Least preferred option: Grow the overall campus floorspace by constructing new permanent
buildings.
In order to avoid construction of new buildings we will accept the following trade-offs



Buildings that might normally be clustered for thematic or service related purposes in a
precinct may remain dispersed where it is not significantly detrimental to the University’s
learning, teaching, research and/or operations.
Buildings that are sub-optimally located may remain where they are, so long as they are
perceived as adequately meeting needs now and for the next 3-5 years. If we can delay
building projects without significantly affecting recruitment or retention of students, or
adversely affecting learning, teaching and research, then we will do so.
Buildings that may potentially conflict with Way-Finding objectives of the Campus Master
Plan, but that in all other respects are in good condition and meeting a long-term
requirement will be retained.
For the purposes of improving space utilisation, we will adopt, as a target, TEFMA standards and aim
for occupancy and utilisation rates in the 75% to 105% range of TEFMA averages for comparable
education institutions.
Page 11 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Part 2 - Overarching Issues (affecting more than one part of the CMPF)
There are three key issues that must be resolved before the long term Campus Master Plan can be
finalised.
UCSA Building
Affects Campus Heart, Events and Recreation Precinct, Sports and Exercise Precinct and Performing
Arts Precinct.
The CMPF concept envisages the UCSA Building being repurposed within an Events and Recreation
Precinct and possibly also providing some of the amenities envisaged for the Sports and Exercise and
Performing Arts precincts. Under the CMPF concept the majority of food, retail, student cultural
spaces, student social spaces and student support services moves to the Campus Heart.
UCSA would need to agree to all of this and would need to be fairly compensated through a
combination of insurance payout and some mutually acceptable transfer of comparable amenities
and/or money.
Early discussions with UCSA indicate an understandable reluctance to part with the UCSA building,
but indications that it might be possible under some circumstances – which would, as a minimum,
include a freestanding permanent UCSA owned and branded building somewhere in the Campus
Heart and/or equity in facilities on the south bank.
Complicating this is the fact that the engineering assessment of the UCSA building is also not yet
complete. It is not yet clear whether it will be practical or economic to remediate part or all of that
building and this makes it impossible to accurately assess both current and future value to UC and
UCSA.
Workstreams
1. Engineering assessment and decision framework for the UCSA Building. Identify fair value of
the building to UC and UCSA. [Target: Quarter 1, 2012]
2. Determine insurance options around the UCSA Building. [Target: During first half of 2012]
3. Carry out negotiations with UCSA around the UCSA Building. If possible, identify fair
compensation for a transfer of the building to UC – including provision of an alternative
permanent building for UCSA. [Target: First half of 2012].
College of Education
Affects Service Hubs, Academic Precincts, Sports and Exercise Precinct
The CMPF envisages relocating the College of Education from the Dovedale Campus to the Ilam
Campus. This relocation provides opportunities for greater alignment of academic disciplines and
schools. It also offers significant cost savings through (a) better utilisation of under-used space on
the Ilam Campus and (b) a reduction in the overall space occupied by the University as a whole for
its existing purpose – including shared use of teaching, laboratory, music and sports space. The cost
analysis is attached as Annex 2.
It is not yet clear where a relocated College of Education would be best located on the Ilam Campus.
No matter where it goes, it will have flow on effects for where other schools and colleges are located
and to car parking and access requirements.
The development of alternative flexible learning spaces may be required to accommodate particular
teacher training pedagogies.
Page 12 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
For the College of Education to relocate to the Ilam Campus the Commerce Building will need to
have been either remediated or replaced. There is insufficient space for the College of Education
and all other colleges on the Ilam Campus without the 12,455 sq/m of space in the Commerce
Building. Current indications are that remediation and replacement will both take around three
years, but this is subject to insurance negotiations and detailed design.
Workstreams
1. A formal decision is needed around relocating the College of Education to the Ilam Campus.
[Target: Quarter 1, 2012]
2. A timeline is required for the remediation or replacement of the Commerce Building and this
will necessarily only be identified once insurance negotiations are complete. [Target:
Quarter 2, 2012]
3. A space allocation exercise is required to identify the optimal location on the Ilam Campus
for a relocated College of Education and the consequential location of other colleges as a
result of this move. [Target: Quarter 2, 2012]
Rutherford and von Haast Buildings
Affects overall capital programme timeline and priorities, Sciences Precinct, and Service Hubs.
The Rutherford and von Haast buildings contains the majority of the University’s science laboratories
and are therefore considerably more complex and expensive buildings to replace or remediate than
other comparable office/learning space focussed buildings. They also contain offices and other
learning and teaching spaces that will be needed in the long term, particularly if the College of
Education shifts to the Ilam Campus.
Both buildings are over forty years old. They could be maintained indefinitely, but at increasing cost.
They are not the sort of buildings that the University would construct now if it was to replace these
buildings.
For seismic performance purposes, both buildings fall in the medium risk category, though are not
considered at risk of collapse in any likely major earthquake.
Engineering assessments and decision framework documents have not yet been completed for
either building. Early indications are that would take amounts in the order of the University’s entire
capital budget for several years to either replace or remediate either of them. It is not yet clear
whether insurance will cover remediation and strengthening.
Until we know what insurance will or won’t do with regard to these buildings and can produce a
decision framework document to guide a decision around replacement, remediation or shutting
them, we will be unable to clearly state how much we will need to spend on what could be the single
largest individual item in our 10 year capital plan.
Workstreams
1. Complete engineering assessments [Target: Quarter 1, 2012]
2. Determine insurance options around Rutherford and Von Haast [Target: Quarter 2, 2012]
3. Complete a decision framework document detailing options and recommendations for
Rutherford and Von Haast buildings [Target: Quarter 2, 2012]
Page 13 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Part 3 – Capital Priorities 2012 to 2014
The remainder of this paper identifies all capital priorities currently identified through the
Campus Master Planning Framework (CMPF) and other planning documents and proposes
allocations for 2012 and 2013, while indicating likely costs in years 2014 and beyond.
The goal of this exercise is to identify the critical few initiatives that we should be funding
in 2012 in line with capital prioritisation principles detailed earlier.
We will use the first half of 2012 to fill all the information gaps we currently have around
our buildings with a view to finalising a robust CMPF and 10-year Capital Plan later in the
year.
This section examines capital priorities and proposes capital allocations using the same
headings and structure as the draft CMPF.
1. Campus Heart and Gateway
The CMPF envisages student amenities and services relocated to the physical centre of the Ilam
campus – in and around the area occupied by the existing James Hight and Registry buildings.
Both these buildings would be reconfigured to better support student amenities and services and a
range of other short and long term amenities could be built around them to create a campus heart.
On one side, the campus heart would provide a link to the Recreation and Events Precinct to the
south-west, and the Sports and Leisure precinct to the south. On the other side, the Campus Heart
would provide links to the academic precincts.
The Campus Heart will be a clearly identifiable area that attracts and orients visitors and first-time
campus users.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
New campus main
entrance (gateway) with
information centre and
signage – removing the
mound and trees
between the Bookshop
and Registry to
accommodate this
$2.0m
Foodhall per Undercroft
Stage 2 concept in
James Hight
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
 It could be possible to use the
recently remediated SSI Building
as a gateway building of some sort
with appropriate signage, visitor
parking and branding.
 RECOMMENDED: Proceed with
the gateway concept as proposed
in the CMPF. Complete design in
2012 and implement over summer
2012/13.
$0.2m
$1.8m
$0
$2.4m
 None – this has proceeded and is
nearing completion.
$2.4m
$0
$0
Student Lounge and
social spaces per
Undercroft Stage 1
concept in James Hight
$0
 None – this was completed in
2011.
$0
$0
$0
Post Graduate Centre
and Retail (Bicycle
Shop) – temporary
building abutting the
Registry building while
Registry is being
$1m
 If Registry will not be remediated
within 3-4 years, proceed with the
original concept.
 [RECOMMENDED] If Registry will
be remediated within a year, do not
$0
Page 14 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
remediated
proceed.
Retail stores – per
Undercroft Stage 3
concept in James Hight
and also in the ground
floor of the Registry
Building.
$3.5m
 [RECOMMENDED] Proceed with
Undercroft Stage 3 as originally
envisaged.
 [RECOMMENDED] If Registry will
be remediated within a year,
proceed to include retail in the
ground floor.
$0.2m
$2.5m
Coffee Shop and Gallery
– temporary building
$1.5m
 [RECOMMENDED] Convert the
existing building occupied by the
UCSA Bookshop and Spice
Traders Cafe into a Coffee Shop
and Gallery space with some
refurbishment/improvement work.
Assume this building will be
needed for at least five years and
invest accordingly. Relocate the
UCSA Bookshop to the new retail
space either in the Undercroft or
Registry.
 NOTE: This will all be subject to
negotiation with UCSA.
$0
$0.5m
Fitness Centre and
UCSA Offices –
$15m
 Proceed as envisaged in the CMPF
proposal.
 [RECOMMENDED] Determine the
outcome of negotiations around the
UCSA building and, if the transfer
is agreed, proceed with a
permanent UCSA-owned building
of some sort as part compensation.
If this UCSA building incorporates
a fitness centre, ensure this aligns
with planning around the Sports
and Leisure Precinct.
TBA
TBA
Reconfigure Registry
lower levels to hold
student amenities and
student support services
$2m
 [RECOMMENDED] Proceed as
envisaged subject to decisions
around remediation of the Registry
Building. (Remediation work is
covered below under Non CMPF
Betterment Work)
$0
$2m
$0
$0
Dependent Workstreams
1. Engineering assessment and decision framework for the UCSA Building. Identify fair value of
the building to UC and UCSA. [Target: First half, 2012]
2. Carry out negotiations with UCSA around the UCSA Building. If possible, identify fair
compensation for a transfer of the building to UC – including provision of an alternative
permanent building for UCSA in the Campus Heart. [Target: First half, 2012].
3. Engineering assessment and decision framework for the Registry Building. [Target: Quarter
1, 2012]
4. Finalise Main Entrance (gateway)/Campus Heart Design and submit to Council for approval.
[Target: Quarter 2, 2012]
Page 15 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
2. Service Hubs
The CMPF envisages two service hubs on the Ilam Campus. These service hubs contain food
services, social spaces and learning and teaching amenities (laboratories, seminar rooms, lecture
theatres, libraries, etc) that are jointly accessed and shared by the surrounding academic
precincts.
One hub will sit within the areas currently focussed on engineering and sciences (centred
approximately on the Sciences Lecture Theatre/ Old Maths area with the removal of E8 and E9 to
ensure clear visibility through the North South pedestrian axis and the other within the areas
currently focussed on arts, commerce and law (centred approximately on the Law / History Building
location).
Hubs will be managed centrally with resources that are shared by and used by all departments and
schools in adjacent precincts.
CMPF Proposal
Replace the Science
Lecture Theatres with a
flexible, multi-use
learning centre of
around 4,000 sq/m
Page 16 of 38
2012-2014
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
$25M
 Insurance outcomes around
remediation are not yet known. We
have sufficient smaller (below 80
seats) and larger teaching spaces
(over 120 seats) at present, but the
Timetabling Project has shown a
shortage of teaching rooms in the 80120 seat range. So long as we can
continue to meet timetabling
requirements around 80-120 seat
lectures we can operate indefinitely
without constructing new lecture
spaces.
 Our teaching needs for smaller spaces
(under 60 seats) is being met through
availability of the Kirkwood Village and
there is no need to build additional
space while the Village continues to
exist – which can be indefinitely in
theory. This decision needs to be
balanced with the opportunity to create
a central modern learning hub that
could assist the University in delivering
world class learning and teaching.
 [RECOMMENDED] Defer a decision
on replacing this building until
insurance outcomes and space
requirements are better understood.
 [RECOMMENDED] Ensure that design
and planning for this space are done
alongside planning for Rutherford, von
Haast and Old Maths so we get an
integrated set of facilities in this part of
campus.
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
$0
$0
TBA
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Hubs at locations that
are as central as
possible to the schools
and departments they
support.
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] Accept the
principle and rationalise amenities as
opportunities arise over the next 10-20
years.
$0
$0
$0
Cafes, social spaces,
libraries/learning hubs
and other
learning/teaching
spaces all co-located
where possible.
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] Accept the
principle and rationalise amenities as
opportunities arise over the next 10-20
years.
$0
$0
$0
Learning and teaching
spaces (lecture theatres,
laboratories, seminar
rooms, meeting rooms,
etc) all managed
centrally and centrally
booked to maximise
utilisation and to
minimise requirements
for built infrastructure.
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] Proceed as
proposed. Implementation has already
begun with centralised management of
all these spaces. Through better
space utilisation and centralised
timetabling, progressively relinquish
and repurpose learning & teaching
spaces located away from hubs.
Opex
Opex
Opex
Dependent Workstreams
None – this part of the CMPF can proceed as originally envisaged.
3. Way-finding
The CMPF proposes changes that would open up the campus visually and improve the ability for
people to get around the campus.
The Way-finding theme specifically covers:




Clear north-south and east-west ‘streets’ across campus so people can see across campus
and move on foot across campus more easily.
Main entrances that visually attract visitors and then provide information and signage to
assist them in finding their way around the campus.
Realigning Forestry Road and University Drive and improving other link roads for the flow of
vehicles and linking of precincts.
Ensuring planted areas are pruned and culled to open up vistas and to make building entries
more visible and accessible and that the spaces between buildings have their own identity
and are sunny and sheltered as much as possible.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Cost of the recommended
option
2012
New campus entrance
with information centre
and signage.
Create secondary
entrances at Creyke
Road (in the space
previously occupied by
the Mushroom) and in
from Clyde Road where
Page 17 of 38
2012-2014
$2.4m
2013
2014+
 None – it is recommended this proceed.
Covered in the Campus Heart
section above.
 [RECOMMENDED] Complete landscaping
in the space vacated by the Mushroom and
a covered walkway between the EPS
Library and Engineering block main
entrance. Put signage to mark this as a
$0.3m
$0
$0
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
the Forestry and Arts
Roads meet.
main entrance. Defer construction of
anything more significant for at least five
years.
Create an internal ‘eastwest street’ between
Engineering and the
Campus Heart.
Requires demolition of
the southern end of Von
Haast.
$1.0m
 Defer a decision until Rutherford and von
Haast Decision Frameworks are completed
later in 2012.
$0
$0
$1.0m
Realign University Drive
so it better links to
buildings and frees up
river-frontage for other
uses.
NA
 This is a long term project that is unlikely to
proceed within the next decade. No action
is required at this time but it is
recommended we create a paper road to
preserve options. This will require analysis
to determine which buildings the University
want to retain or dispose of along
University Drive. Until this is done a route
for a realigned roadway cannot be defined
and costs cannot be estimated.
$0
$0
$0
Realign Forestry Road
so it makes better use of
space along Creyke
Road – allowing
developments in the
Research and Industry
Precinct.
$2m
 [RECOMMENDED] There is real potential
to create office park type office space for
research and industry partner
organisations in this area. Plan for the
realignment in 2012.
$2m
$0
$0
Provide a vehicle link
between University
Drive and Science Drive
NA
 This is a long term project that is unlikely to
proceed within the next decade. No action
is required at this time but it is
recommended we create a paper road to
preserve options. See comments for
University Drive above – costs cannot be
estimated for the same reasons.
$0
$0
$0
Address signage across
campus to guide
vehicles and
pedestrians
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] This is relatively low
cost and should proceed as an opex
project. Address it at the same time as
renaming buildings per objectives under
Academic/Service Precincts.
Opex
$0
$0
Carparking – Review the
location and
configuration of carparks
in line with changes to
precincts and relocation
of the College of
Education.
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] Develop a parking
strategy during 2012 to improve parking
operations for staff, students and visitors
from 2013 as envisioned in the transport
plan. Capital expenditure on parking will
be informed by a more realistic charging
regime which supports the development
and maintenance of transport facilities, and
by the future shape of the campus as
envisaged in the CMPF. The estimated
capital cost in 2013 will be revised once
the parking strategy has been completed
and approved.
$0
$1.0m
$0
Dependency Workstreams
None
Page 18 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
4. Academic & Service Unit Precincts
The CMPF envisages a campus where academic and non-academic departments are located in
facilities that are configured to support relative priorities around learning, teaching, research and
service delivery.
These facilities will be clustered around hubs that provide shared amenities and, where possible, will
be located in proximity to other departments and precincts where there are common interests and
objectives.
Precincts will necessarily be organic – supporting growth and contraction of departments as
priorities change and permitting easy relocation and reconfiguration of facilities where required.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Relocate the College of
Education to the Ilam
Campus
NA
Identify middle and
long-term
accommodation for
Commerce
Rutherford and von
Haast (Science)
Precinct
Demolish Rutherford
and replace it with a
number of new low-rise
buildings forming sunny
sheltered quads and
garden courtyards.
Page 19 of 38
2012-2014
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
 This is subject to remediation or
replacement of the Commerce
Building and cannot take place before
2015. The location of the College of
Education and departments that will
be relocated to accommodate it will
be determined during 2012.
 Some capital will probably be needed
to make the Dovedale Campus
suitable for alternative use. Costs will
need to be identified once likely
usage is known.
 The future of Te Pourewa is unclear
and will be subject to insurance
decisions during 2012. The decision
to remediate or demolish Te Pourewa
will affect decisions around the future
use of the Dovedale Campus.
$0
$0
$TBA
$0.2m
 Options might include the top floors of
a remediated SBS Building if a return
to the Commerce Building is likely, or
better space utilisation around the
Arts and Law Precincts if a return to
the Commerce Building is unlikely.
$0.2m
$60m
 This is an ‘overarching issue’.
Address in line with the strategy
outlined above. Regardless of what
is done with Rutherford and von
Haast the University will need to
spend a significant amount of money.
 [RECOMMENDED] Ringfence funds
for replacement of Rutherford and
von Haast but defer expenditure until
a full Decision Framework has been
considered by Council
 [RECOMMENDED] Ensure that
planning and design around
Rutherford and von Haast include
consideration of desired future
options around the space currently
occupied by Old Maths and the
Science Lecture Theatres
(indicatively earmarked for a 4000
TBA
TBA
TBA
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
sq/m modern learning hub type
building)
Demolish the end of von
Haast to support WayFinding objectives.
$50m
 [RECOMMENDED] The amount to
remediate Von Haast may not be
warranted given its age and
condition. Ringfence funds for the
replacement of von Haast but defer
expenditure until a full Decision
Framework has been considered by
Council
TBA
TBA
TBA
Biology SBS Stage 2
Refurbishment
(Ongoing Capital
Project) – this is
completing work begun
in 2010 and previously
approved by Council.
Chemical & Process
Engineering New High
Bay
$6.11m
 [RECOMMENDED] Complete this
project and review short term
occupancy of this building around
decanting from buildings being
remediated elsewhere.
$6.11 +
$2M
insurance
risk2
$0
$0
$4.0m
 [RECOMMENDED] Replace Seimon
with the construction of a simple High
Bay laboratory building and an
upgrade of the existing Denham.
$0.5m
$3.5m
$0
Find a new permanent
home for the College of
Engineering Offices
following demolition of
the old offices.
Improve space
utilisation by greater use
of open-plan and multiuse space.
NA
 [RECOMMENDED] Explore options
around taking space in the EPS
Library.
$0.2m
$0
$0
$0
 This is a design consideration that
should be incorporated in all major
refits and departmental space
allocation exercises.
 [RECOMMENDED] Develop space
utilisation policy regarding open-plan
space.
 [RECOMMENDED] Develop and
promulgate a “Space Allocation
Policy” Develop interior design
standards for open plan office spaces
– covering factors such as access to
breakout/meeting spaces, finishes
and furnishing standards.
 [RECOMMENDED] Develop design
standards for learning and teaching
spaces to ensure we maximise
current and future flexibility.
Opex
$0
$0
Adopt Generic naming
of buildings
$0
 [RECOMMENDED] Move to dual
naming during 2012-2013 with
buildings having a primary name (eg
James Hight) that does not relate to
the department housed in them (eg
Central Library). Address in parallel
with the signage workstream under
Way-Finding.
Opex
Opex
$0
2
Insurers have approved $500,000 of strengthening to SBS 2, however, the actual cost is going to be $1.5M $2.0M and we are currently have no firm commitment from insurers that they will approve. This is therefore a
cost risk until we get a final decision.
Page 20 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Dependency Workstreams
See above for dependencies around Rutherford/von Haast and for the College of Education.
5. Events and Recreation Precinct
The CMPF proposes that UCSA Building or its replacement and the surrounding area be an events
and recreation precinct.
The Events and Recreation Precinct could include some or all of the following:




The Ballroom part of the UCSA Building replaced with a large indoor sports venue.
The Ngaio Marsh Theatre upgraded and possibly expanded to serve as a performance venue.
The remainder of the UCSA Building, if economically remediable, repurposed as a
conference venue.
The UCSA Events Centre existing on an ongoing basis.
Under all scenarios, the Events and Recreation Precinct is seen as holding facilities that could be
shared with the wider community.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
Indoor Sports Venue
capable of hosting
international sports
events with seating for
spectators.
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] In
design, assess whether a sports
venue could be used as a multiuse space for concerts (along
the lines of the Trustbank
Stadium in Wellington).
[RECOMMENDATION]
Ascertain Council interest in
developing a shared community
facility.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Defer
decisions on the location of this
venue until outstanding issues
around the ownership and
future of the UCSA Building
have been resolved.
TBA
TBA
TBA
UCSA Events Centre
$2.5m
 This is proceeding and due for
completion April 2012.
$2.5m
$0
$0
Ngaio Marsh Theatre
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] Defer
consideration of this until
outstanding issues around the
ownership and future of the
UCSA Building have been
resolved.
 [RECOMMENDATION] If it will
be economic to remediate the
Ngaio Marsh Theatre,
undertake design analysis and
costings around modernising
the theatre, increasing seat
numbers (if practical), improving
stage and providing dressing
room facilities.
$0
TBA
TBA
Page 21 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Conference Venue with
spaces for cultural and
social clubs
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] Defer
consideration of this until
outstanding issues around the
ownership and future of the
UCSA Building have been
resolved.
$0
TBA
TBA
Ilam Homestead –
remediate this as befits
its status as a heritage
building, but consider
whether it is the best
location for a Staff Club.
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] Discuss
options with the Staff Club
around use of Ilam Homestead
versus a more central location
for staff amenities. Consider
using Ilam Homestead as part
of a conference venue.
$0.3
$0
$0
GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: Consider the extent to which objectives around a performing arts
precinct could be met through multi-use design around the Events and Recreation Precinct.
Dependency Workstreams
See above for dependencies around the UCSA Building.
6. Sports and Fitness Precinct
The CMPF envisages a new gymnasium located adjacent to the Events and Recreation Precinct
with ready access to either the Ilam Fields and/or new fields created out of a land swap with the
Ilam School.
The gym would include facilities to support existing learning, teaching and research around sports
science and health sciences.
Under all scenarios, the Sports and Fitness Precinct is seen as providing amenities that could be
shared with the wider community.
CMPF Proposal
Of all precincts
envisaged in the CMPF
this is the one that has
the most options around
location (Ilam Fields,
Opposite Ilam Fields,
UCSA Building or Ilam
School) and most
complex
interdependencies (Ilam
School Swap).
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
$25-$40m
 [RECOMMENDATION] Carry
out a requirements gathering
and prioritisation exercise with
the Recreation Centre, UCSA,
Sports Sciences and Health
Sciences and bring back a
vision for UC Sports and
Fitness before the end of 2012.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Though
desirable, the land swap with
Ilam School is, at best, going to
be a protracted process. Prefer
options that do not depend
upon the land swap proceeding
but do not destroy options
should it eventuate.
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
$0
TBD
TBD
Dependency Workstreams
Page 22 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
See above for dependencies around the College of Education relocation and the issues surrounding
the UCSA Building.
7. Te Ao Marama Precinct
The CMPF envisages a precinct focussed around the Te Ao Marama Centre with a wharenui and
Atea providing a focus for Maori and Pacific studies.
A relocated College of Education would ideally be located close to the Te Ao Marama Precinct.
The MacMillan Brown Library would continue to sit within the Te Ao Marama Centre with a
collection focussed on Maori and Pacific learning, teaching and research.
The University’s archives (with a focus on New Zealand, Maori and Pacifika) will be located in or
around this precinct.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Wharenui for meetings,
learning, teaching,
powhiri, and general use
by the wider Maori
community.
$2m
Atea for meetings,
learning, teaching and
general use by the wider
Pacific community.
Replace existing library
warehouse space with a
purpose built
warehouse, archive
store that can be shared
with Internal
Affairs/Archives New
Zealand
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
 [RECOMMENDATION] Work
with Whenua Tapu on design
for a Wharenui. Subject to
capital availability plan for
construction within the next 2-5
years.
Opex
TBD
$2m
$2m
 [RECOMMENDATION] Plan for
implementation in a 5-10 year
timeframe with options around
location and configuration
$0
$0
$2m
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] If a
shared space is developed with
Internal Affairs/Archives NZ,
plan to use real-estate on land
at 75-81 Clyde Road. Start with
the 2000 sq/m of temporary
decanting archive storage that
will be funded by Insurance in
2012.
$100K
TBD
TBD
Dependency Workstreams
Resolve discussions with Internal Affairs/Archives NZ regarding a shared archive store.
Page 23 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
8. Cultural Amenities
The CMPF envisages a number of amenities to support arts and culture on campus – making the
campus more vibrant and interesting.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
A performance venue of
300-400 seats – ideally
located in the Campus
Heart but with easy
access to car parking
and other social type
space.
$9-$12m
Exhibition Space on the
edge of campus for
University collections
such as art, Logie, etc.
NA
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
 A performance venue in the
Campus Heart will cost around
$9-$12m depending upon size
and supporting amenities
(including car parks and
roading).
 A performance venue around
the Fine Arts and Te Ao
Marama precincts will cost the
same.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Before
considering green-field builds,
examine feasibility of using the
Ngaio MarshTheatre and/or
other spaces in the Events and
Recreation Precinct. The cost
will be much less than the cost
of a new building (say $2m).
TBD nil
$2m
$0
 [RECOMMENDATION] This is a
lower priority at this time.
Consider opportunities for
creating exhibition space
around reviews of space
utilisation and implement where
it can be done so economically
or as part of fund raising.
Consider doing so as part of a
gateway building/information
centre.
$0
$0
$0.1m
Dependency Workstreams
See dependencies around the UCSA Building.
Page 24 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
9. Research and Industry Precinct
We already have a number of Crown Research Institutes and industry research partners occupying
buildings along Creyke Road. The CMPF envisages encouraging even more of these organisations
to the campus where there are synergies around research, learning and teaching.
CMPF Proposal
As opportunities arise,
attract more CRIs and
industry research
partners to the area on
and around Creyke
Road.
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
NA
 [RECOMMENDATION] Explore
private equity options around
constructing technology park
type offices in the space around
31 Creyke Road along to the
space previously occupied by
Siemon Building. Would require
realignment of Forestry Road
and new parking. The cost
allocation in 2012 is the amount
required for design work
necessary to approach potential
funders.
 [RECOMMENDATION]
Consider alternative location
options for units/departments
currently located in this space.
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
$0.1m
TBD
TBD
Dependency Workstreams
Relocate activities in the domestic buildings that will be displaced by the realignment (Music, Pacific)
10. Accommodation Precinct
Maintain a portfolio of accommodation around the University suitable for the full range of staff
and student requirements.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
Create an Erskine
Scholars Village –
possibly on Montana
Ave through a
public/private
partnership
$6-8m
 [RECOMMENDATION] Carry out a
review of requirements before working
up a PPP solution. Consider upgrades
to existing University Accommodation
on Montana Ave, and CLV
accommodation on Waimari Road.
Cost would be more in the order of
$1m.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Consider
implications of relocation of
Communication Disorder Prefabs and
phased medium density housing
redevelopment in their place.
TBD
TBD
TBD
Dependency Workstreams
None.
Page 25 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
11. Other Relevant CMPF Capital Priorities
CMPF identifies a number of other areas where expenditure may be required around field
stations, warehousing, administration, grounds and infrastructure.
CMPF Proposal
CMPF Cost
Estimate
Options & Alternatives
Field Stations. Use
facilities outside
Christchurch to support
strategic objectives
around student
recruitment and
retention and
enhancement of
learning and teaching by
using them for parts of
award-bearing and
community education
courses, thus
enhancing, in particular,
international recruitment
possibilities.
NA
Redevelop the Dovedale
Campus once the
College of Education
has relocated to Ilam
suitable for some other
complementary purpose
(feeder school, park for
research & industry
partners, etc)
$5m
Health Precinct in the
CBD
NA
Page 26 of 38
2012-2014
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
 [RECOMMENDATION] Complete the
strategy for field stations that is currently in
development (PVC Science leading) and
determine long term requirements.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Marketing to work
with academic departments to determine
whether facilities outside Christchurch
(including property at Tekapo) could assist
with recruitment and retention goals.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Investigate
possibilities for stronger partnership activity
with Earth & Sky at the Mount John facility.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Proceed with
refurbishment of the run down Cass field
station if the strategy for field stations
confirms a long term requirement.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Consider the
ongoing viability of the Hari Hari field
station – examine options such as
academic and economic benefits of
disposal or relocation to nearer Fox/Franz
Josef glaciers
 [RECOMMENDATION] Proceed with
investigation of options over 2012.
Dovedale will not be available for other
purposes before 2015.
 [RECOMMENDATION] Examine options
around private funding for developments
on this campus – including building in the
airspace over the main carpark.
$0
$1.5m
$0
$0
$0
$5m
 [RECOMMENDATION: Consider the
relocation of allied health and clinic
activities into the Health precinct under
consideration in the CBD
TBA
$0
$0
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
12. Refurbishment and Reconfiguration Work
This is refurbishment and reconfiguration (modernising and repurposing) work that should be done at the same time as
insurance funded repairs. By doing so, we expect to make significant savings (at least 30%) on what we would spend for
the same work if we were doing it separately.
This list contains a number of projects that were identified pre-earthquakes. As we better understand other capital priorities,
this list is likely to evolve significantly.
This list is likely to evolve significantly as engineering inspections continue and priorities and needs are better understood.
To best understand the issues around this list review the earlier section on ‘Current Understanding of our Buildings’
Capital Items
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
Modern Languages
English
History
Geography
Geography/Psychology
James Hight Windows
James Hight Building
Staff Club
Engineering Blocks B, D & E
Civil Engineering Refurbishment
Civil Engineering Multi Structures Research Lab
Electrical Engineering Refurbishment
Mechanical Engineering
Chemical & Process Eng Denham Refurbishment
Fine Arts Blocks 1 and 1a
Fine Arts Block 2
Fine Arts Block 3
Fine Arts Block 2a (Toilets)
Fine Arts Block 4
Registry Seismic Upgrade
Medium & Minor Capital (ongoing refurbishment)
TOTALS
Page 27 of 38
2012-2014
2014+
$1.5m
$1.5m
$1.5m
$1.5m
$1.4m
$6.3m
$0.3m
$0.5m
$0.4m
$4.7m
$1.5m
$1.0m
$17.3m
$9.5m
$6.0m
$14.5m
$17.5m
$1.0m
$1.5m
$0.5m
$1.5m
$0.3m
$3.0m
$11.70
$0.7m
$4.0m
$12.40
$4.0m
$79.30
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
13. Other/Miscellaneous
These are other items that do not fit into any other category above. They include projects that are being done primarily for
risk mitigation purposes (Risk Mitigation) and ongoing building refurbishments begun before 2011 (Ongoing Capital Project).
There are a number of other projects that have been on the capital plan for a while but that do not align with short term
capital priorities (Other).
Capital Items
Cost of the recommended option
2012
2013
2014+
Butterfly Wing Refurbishment/Second Primary
Datacentre (Risk Mitigation) – this is work required to
upgrade the Butterfly Wing suitable to house the
second primary data centre and to protect the
University’s main communications hub.
Boiler Controls (Risk Mitigation) – this is completing a
replacement of obsolete boiler controls. The business
case for this was approved by IAG in Q2, 2011
BSEC Law Precinct (Other) - this is a provision for
some building work on the Law Building if required to
accommodate a joint Commerce and Law
administration office on the ground floor of the Law
Building.
Emergency Generators (Risk Mitigation) – a number of
buildings contain equipment, freezers, animals and
other research collections that cannot cope with longer
term power outages. Approval was given in 2011 for
one additional generator for 114 Ilam Road and
additional generation may be required as ongoing risk
assessments take place around UC buildings and their
contents.
Multi-Faith Centre (Other) – a requirement for this has
been identified for some time to assist with international
student recruitment. Progressing it is a matter of
affordability relative to other priorities.
Security Call Points (Risk Mitigation) – Stage 1
approved by Council in November 2011, this project
aims to put a number of security call points around
campus which can be used for mass broadcasts in an
emergency and for seeking personal assistance or
information. Stage 2 scheduled for 2013 subject to
review and recommendations from stage 1.
Lights on Ilam Field (Other) – being funded through the
Student Services Levy, this project will make the fields
usable by students for more of the year.
TOTALS
Page 28 of 38
2012-2014
$1.5
$2.5
$0
$0
$0.5
$3.0
$0.045
TBA
$0
$0
$0
$2.0
$0.76m
$0
$0.65m
$0.21m
$0m
$0m
$0.27
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Part 4 - Summary & Overview
The table below shows all the current allocations proposed under Campus Master Plan headings.
Note that there are many figures missing as initial scoping and design will be required before a high
level cost estimate can be provided.
Summary of Capital Investment Plan
Cost of the recommended option
2012
$m
2013
$m
2014+
$m
Total
$m
1.
Campus Heart and Gateway
5
5
-
10
2.
Service Hubs
-
-
-
-
3.
Way-finding
2
1
-
3
4.
Academic & Service Unit Precincts
7
4
-
11
5.
Events and Recreation Precinct
3
-
-
3
6.
Sports and Fitness Precinct
-
-
-
-
7.
Te Ao Marama Precinct
-
-
4
4
8.
Cultural Amenities
-
2
2
4
9.
Research and Industry Precinct
0
-
-
0
10. Accommodation Precinct
-
-
-
-
11. Other Relevant CMPF Capital Priorities
-
2
5
7
12
12
79
103
3
1
18
22
32
26
109
167
12. Non-CMPF Betterment and Refubishment work
13. Non-CMPF Other/Miscellaneous
Total
Page 29 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Annex - College of Education Relocation – Cost Model
Recommendations
1. Relocate the College of Education (including Education Plus) to the Ilam Campus. Plan for this to
take place around 2013 or 2014.
2. Commence an exercise to identify an alternative use for the parts of the Dovedale site that will
be vacated once the College of Education have been relocated.
Background and Context
1. The Campus Master Planning work undertaken in 2010 identified the potential to create a more
cohesive University and to realise a range of synergies in teaching and research by relocating the
College of Education from the Dovedale campus to the Ilam Campus.
2. This analysis identifies the cost implications, options and opportunities of carrying out this
relocation.
3. The Dovedale campus is the property of the Crown. The University has open-ended use of the
Dovedale campus, but with one caveat; the site must only be used for educational purposes.
Sale of the Dovedale site is therefore not an option at this time and has been excluded from
analysis in this paper.
4. The Crown is exploring transferring ownership of the Dovedale site to the University. If this
takes place, sale of the site may become an option that can be considered alongside other
options.
Summary of Findings
5. The earliest the College of Education could move to Ilam would be 2014 assuming Commerce
Building can be remediated. This shifts out to 2015 if the Commerce Building has to be replaced
and potentially shifts out another 3-4 years if the University loses the use of the Rutherford and
Von-Haast buildings and needs to use the Dovedale site as a decanting space.
6. The Commerce Building could adequately accommodate the College of Education.
7. While the Ilam campus has access to teaching spaces in the Kirkwood Village, the Ilam Campus,
as a whole, could accommodate the staff and students that would shift across from the College
of Education. Assuming the Science Lecture Theatres are not remediated, the University would
need to look at constructing additional teaching space (lecture theatres, seminar and tutorial
rooms) at some point in future if or when the Dovedale Village was removed.
8. There appears to be a financial case for retaining the Dovedale site if the College of Education is
relocated to the Ilam site.
The two scenarios that appear likely to generate the best financial return are shown below in
red and blue. Those that get above the $0 line are providing a positive net present value (NPV)
within twenty years.
Scenario 1 (Blue) is where the Dovedale site is let to a mix of commercial tenants. The main
variable in this scenario is the rent per sq/m and the three scenarios shown in blue vary only by
the average rent achieve. The “$300 tenancy” is the most likely scenario and this achieves a
positive NPV in year 6.
Page 30 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Scenario 2 (Red) is where the Dovedale site is let to an education provider for a school that will
feed some students into the University. The three scenarios are

“Feeder School Conservative” which assumes rent of $160 per sq/m and 50 additional EFTS
for the University.

“Feeder School Medium”, which assumes rent of $200 per sq/m and 80 additional EFTS for
the University.

“Feeder School Optimistic”, which assumes rent of $225 per sq/m and 120 additional EFTS
for the University.
The Feeder School Medium scenario is seen as most likely an it achieves a positive NPV in year
5.
$22,000,000
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$250 tenancy
$10,000,000
$300 tenancy
$8,000,000
$350 tenancy
$6,000,000
Feeder School Conservative
Feeder School Medium
$4,000,000
Feeder School Optimistic
$2,000,000
$0
2010
-$2,000,000
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
-$4,000,000
-$6,000,000
-$8,000,000
Page 31 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Analysis
Timing of the College of Education (CoE) Move
The College of Education cannot move to Ilam until the Commerce Building (or equivalent
accommodation) is available again. It is not clear whether Commerce can be remediated or will
need replacing. It will take up to 2 years to remediate Commerce and 3 years to replace it.
At the earliest, the CoE move to Ilam will therefore be 2014 or 2015.
ASSUMPTION A: For the purposes of cost modelling, it has been assumed that income will not start
until year 2, though most costs will be incurred in years 0 or 1. It has also been assumed that the
cost of remediating or replacing the Commerce Building will be met by Insurance. The only cost
included in the cost model is that of reconfiguring parts of the existing Commerce Building assuming
it is remediated rather than replaced.
Leasing Dovedale
At present (excluding the Sonoda Christchurch Campus) there are 33,610 sq/m of buildings at
Dovedale
Of the 33,610 sq/m, 16,120 are either leased out (Electoral Commission [temporary to December
2011] and the Christchurch College of English), occupied by functions that would not need to move
to Ilam (Primary Data Centre, CEM Centre, Childcare Centre, and the Wharenui), that could move
(Education Plus) or that potentially may not exist in the longer term (Dovedale Village and Te
Pourewa).
These are shown below.
Building/Function
Grounds/Workshops
Primary Data Centre (Tech)
CEM Centre (Waimari & Orakipaoa)
Childcare Te Ao Tamariki
Christchurch College of English
Te Pourewa (may be demolished)
Wharenui
Dovedale Village
Sub Total
Electoral Commission (Wairarapa)
Education Plus (Otakaro Annex)
Sub Total
TOTAL
Sq/M
279
784
200
365
1,464
4,980
105
6,378
14,555
853
712
1,565
16,120
Assuming the space currently occupied by the Electoral Commission is vacated and Education Plus
moves with the rest of the College of Education to the Ilam Campus, this leaves around 12,677 sq/m
of space that can be let in the long term (assuming Dovedale Village is eventually cleared) and
19,055 sq/m of space that could be let until Dovedale Village is removed.
Page 32 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
ASSUMPTION B: Dovedale Village will be needed by the University for decanting other buildings for
at least the next five to six years. Dovedale Village should be excluded from all rental models.
ASSUMPTION C: Rent models assume there will be 12,677 sq/m of lettable space. It could be that
increased rentals could be achieved for space currently occupied by existing tenants, but this has not
been factored into the revenue cost models.
ASSUMPTION D: There are really only four main scenarios; (1) let Dovedale piecemeal to a number
of tenants and have UC continue maintaining grounds and buildings, (2) let Dovedale to one tenant
(such as the Ministry of Education) for a feeder school, (3) Give Dovedale back to the Crown, (4) Do
nothing and continue to operate most or all of CoE. Other scenarios that were not modelled
because they give a lower financial return include; (A) Shifting CoE to Ilam and replacing them with
another college, (B) entering into a commercial public private partnership type arrangement for
someone else to manage Dovedale and assume financial risk, in return for UC accepting a lower
financial return, (C) a hybrid model where a school takes half Dovedale and the rest of the site is
tenanted by commercial firms (this provides a financial return between scenarios 1 & 2). All
alternative scenarios can be considered if the CoE moves, but they are likely to offer a lower
financial return.
ASSUMPTION E: Given the number of ongoing tenants and functions that will remain at Dovedale, a
scenario where Dovedale is let to one master tenant (such as the Ministry of Education) is less likely
than a scenario where Dovedale is let piecemeal to a number of tenants. It is possible that a school,
for example, might not co-exist elegantly with the other tenants or might find the site unattractive
while playing fields are occupied by the Dovedale Village.
Page 33 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Can the CoE fit into the Commerce Building?
The Commerce Building has a floor area of approximately 12,455 sq/m of which 8,095 sq/m are
usable (usable space is calculated as 65% of the total based on TEFMA averages).
Dovedale has 18,202 sq/m of floor space currently occupied by CoE of which (based on TEFMA
averages) we assume around 65% are usable space – or 11,896 sq/m.
The 11,896 sq/m includes lecture space, library space, recreation centre space and bookable
seminar/tutorial room space that will be available elsewhere on campus. Again, if we apply TEFMA
averages of 47% for Academic Space against the 7,223 sq/m of space currently occupied by CoE at
Dovedale, we get 5,591 sq/m as being a theoretical space requirement for the CoE academic staff for
the Commerce Building – well within the 7,223 sq/m of usable space currently in the Commerce
Building.
Looking at spaces in the Commerce Building, it appears capable of housing at least 187 people in a
range of office configurations – as shown below.
90
28
7
2
1
1
187
1 Person Offices in Commerce (12-16 sq/m)
2 person offices in Commerce (16-22 sq/m)
3 person offices in Commerce (22-28 sq/m)
4 person offices in Commerce (28-36 sq/m)
5 person office in Commerce 39.3 sq/m
7 person office in Commerce 68.2 sq/m
Comfortable occupancy for Commerce
By comparison, the College of Education report that there are 145 staff who would need to move
from Dovedale to Ilam. These break down as follows;
100
25
20
145
Staff in one person offices
Staff in Shared 1.5x Offices (two staff in one office)
Staff in shared/open plan workspaces
TOTAL STAFF in the CoE
In addition there are approximately 150 PhD, Masters and other postgraduate students.
ASSUMPTION F: College of Education will fit in the Commerce Building.
General Assumptions
ASSUMPTION G: All figures exclude GST. Where GST is charged, it will be on top of the indicated
figures.
ASSUMPTION H: All figures are in 2011 dollars. Inflation is not factored into any of the modelling.
Assumptions in the Cost Models
1. Insurance income from demolition of Te Pourewa (The Tower) will be approximately $10m.
Insurance have given an estimate of $1.5m where the University thinks that the cost should
be $11m. Based on experience to date, we think the upper estimate of $10m is achievable.
2. Rental income from Dovedale assumes 12,677 sq/m of lettable space.
Page 34 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
A rent assessment of the Dovedale site was undertaken and indicated that A-Grade space
(Wheki & Accommodation Block – 5,990 sq/m) should fetch rentals in the range of $300 to
$355 per sq/m. B-Grade space (the rest – 5,322 sq/m) should fetch rentals in the range of
$250-$350 per sq/m. Car parking should realise between $10 and $30 per car park per
week.
For the purposes of modelling building rental, it has been assumed that rent of $300 per
sq/m is the most likely rental return on average.
SENSITIVITY: Every $7 that rent increases or decreases per sq/m reduces or increases the
payback period by one year.
For the purposes of modelling car park rental, it has been assumed that 200 carparks will be
let on an annual basis of $25 per week for 49 weeks a year – or ($200 x $25 x 49 =) $245,000
plus GST.
3. Average Occupancy – it is assumed that Dovedale will not be fully let at all times. For the
purposes of this model, average occupancy of 85% has been assumed.
SENSITIVITY: Every 2.3% that this increases or decreases by reduces or increases the payback
period by 1 year.
4. Cost to demolish and clear Te Pourewa – This is a conservative estimate by the Estate and
Asset Management team. It assumes we replace Te Pourewa with pathways and
landscaping, but no buildings.
5. Cost to bring the Commerce Building to College of Education requirements. This is a best
estimate based on all 12,455 sq/m of useable and non-usable floor space where 20% will
require major reconfiguration work at a cost of $1,200 per sq/m, 20% will require minor
reconfiguration (refurbishment) at a cost of $500 per sq/m and 60% will be fine for
occupying without reconfiguration or refurbishment.
We assume that insurance remediation will offset a significant proportion of the betterment
work (based on similar work going on in buildings such as the James Hight. For the purposes
of modelling, it is assumed 40% of the cost will be borne by insurance and the remainder by
the University.
6. Cost to bring the Law Building to the point where it can accommodate Law and Commerce.
This includes removing the library and turning this into office and teaching space. This is a
best estimate based on all 5000 sq/m of useable and non-usable floor space where 15% will
require major reconfiguration work at a cost of $1,200 per sq/m, 20% will require minor
reconfiguration (refurbishment) at a cost of $500 per sq/m and 65% will be fine for
occupying without reconfiguration or refurbishment. NOTE: conversion of the Law Library is
currently seen as unnecessary, particularly while Arts student numbers remain low.
Commerce and Law may be able to spread into adjacent buildings currently occupied by the
College of Arts. If the Law Library was converted into offices, the cost would rise from $1.4m
to $2.3m as 30% of the Law building would require major reconfiguration.
Again, we assume that insurance remediation will offset around some of the betterment
work (based on similar work going on in buildings such as the James Hight. For the purposes
of modelling, it is assumed 40% of the cost will be borne by insurance and the remainder by
the University.
7. Greenfield Space Requirements for CoE at Ilam – it is assumed that some new building work
will be required to accommodate CoE, but that is will largely be limited to the Recreation
Centre and associated Health Sciences facilities. ESAM estimate that a relocated and rebuilt
Recreation Centre will need to be around 50% larger than the current facility to meet CoE
requirements. Sports Science currently have around 1,700 sq/m of space at Dovedale.
Page 35 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
Assuming all 1,700 sq/m were needed at Ilam and an average Greenfield cost of $5,000 per
sq/m, the cost could be as high as $8.5m. In reality, CoE should be able to share space with
the rest of the Recreation Centre’s users, so a provision of $5.0m has been made.
8. Cost to bring Dovedale to a lettable standard – there are many spaces that are unlikely to
meet commercial (or even school) requirements (such as the Jack Mann auditorium,
gymnasium, library, etc). It is assumed that many spaces will need to be reconfigured or
extensively refurbished to get them to a lettable standard. This is a best estimate based on
all 12,677 sq/m of useable and non-usable floor space where 30% will require major
reconfiguration work at a cost of $1,200 per sq/m, 20% will require minor reconfiguration
(refurbishment) at a cost of $500 per sq/m and 50% will be fine for occupying without
reconfiguration or refurbishment.
Again, we assume that insurance remediation will offset a significant proportion of the
betterment work (based on similar work going on in buildings such as the James Hight. For
the purposes of modelling, it is assumed 40% the cost will be borne by insurance and the
remainder by the University.
9. NPV Discount Rate – this is the current (November 2011) discount rate applied by Treasury
to Crown investment decisions.
10. For each scenario, a proportion of current costs is shown as continuing to be borne by the
University. Current annual operating costs for the Dovedale site are as follows;
$630,000
$1,400,000
$628,000
$570,000
$175,000
Building & plant maintenance/refurbishment
Furnishings, fitout & equipment
Utilities
Insurance
Grounds
For the scenario where Dovedale is leased to a number of tenants, the University continues
to operate as landlord, meeting all costs associated with building & plant, insurance and
grounds, but only 40% of utilities and 20% of furnishings, fitout and equipment (in common
areas)
For the scenario where Dovedale is leased to one tenant (such as the Ministry of Education),
the University continues to maintain the buildings and plan and keep them insured. All
other costs are met by the tenant.
Note that UC insurance is $5.7m and 10% of this has been allocated to the Dovedale Campus
as a pro-rate of its floor area relative to the overall floor area across both campuses.
11. Scenario 2 Rental Income and Average Occupancy – it is assumed that a sole tenant would
be the Ministry of Education or some other education provider and a lower rent would be
accepted because the tenant would serve as a feeder school/college to the University of
Canterbury.
Rent is therefore set at $200 per Sq/M but it is assumed that 100% of space is occupied.
It is assumed that a tenancy of this sort would not require as many carparks. The
assumption is that only 100 carparks would be let, though at the same $25 per week for 49
weeks a year as for the scenario above.
Additional EFTS from a feeder College. This is highly speculative, but for the purposes of
modelling it is assumed that a feeder College might provide an additional net 80 EFTS per
year by year 7, with EFTS coming on stream from year 4. The average income per EFTS is
assumed to be $12,788 (Standard cost provided by the Enterprise Reporting Team in
Financial Services).
Page 36 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
37
Cost Model Scenario 1 – Let Dovedale Piecemeal (UC meets most operating costs)
Lettable Sq/M
0
$000's
Variables1
Year
-$8,000,000 Insurance from Te Pourewa
1
$000's
2
$000's
3
$000's
4
$000's
5
$000's
6
$000's
7
$000's
8
$000's
9
$000's
10
$000's
(8,000)
12,677
$300 Rental Income from Dovedale Lease (Rate per sq/m)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
(3,233)
Carparks Let
200
85% Average occupancy of Dovedale (time and/or space)
$25 Rental Income from Carparks (for 49 wks/yr)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
(245)
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
280
251
570
175
1,906
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
(1,571)
5,542
4,277
3,100
2,006
987
40
(841)
(1,661)
(2,423)
(3,132)
Insurance Offset
40%
40%
40%
$2,000,000
$5,729,000
$1,400,000
$5,000,000
Cost to demolish & clear Te Pourewa
Cost to bring Commerce Building to CoE needs
Cost to bring Law Building to Law & Commerce needs
Greenfield space requirements for CoE at Ilam
$5,831,420 Bring Dovedale to lettable standard
100%
20%
40%
100%
100%
2,000
2,292
560
5,000
2,333
Dovedale Operating Costs
Building & plant maintenance/refurbishment
Furnishings, fitout & equipment
Utilities
Insurance
Grounds
TOTAL
4,184
7.5% NPV
CoE Business Case Model Variables v2 (2012-01-24).xls
Page 37 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework
38
Cost Model Scenario 2 – Let Dovedale as a whole for a feeder school/college (probably to the Ministry of Education).
Lettable Sq/M
12,677
$
0
$000's
Year
-$8,000,000 Insurance from Te Pourewa
$225 Rental Income from Dovedale Lease
100% Average occupancy of Dovedale (time and/or space)
$25 Rental Income from Carparks (for 49 wks/yr)
12,788
120 Additional EFTS from feeder school @ $20k each PA
40%
$2,000,000
$5,729,000
$1,400,000
$5,000,000
Cost to demolish & clear Te Pourewa
Cost to bring Commerce Building up to CoE needs
Cost to bring Law Building to Law & Commerce needs
Greenfield space requirements for CoE at Ilam
$5,831,420 Bring Dovedale to lettable standard
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
2
$000's
3
$000's
4
$000's
5
$000's
6
$000's
7
$000's
8
$000's
9
$000's
10
$000's
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(2,852)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(123)
(384)
(767)
(1,151)
(1,535)
(1,535)
(1,535)
(1,535)
(8,000)
Carparks Let
100
Insurance Offset
40%
40%
1
$000's
2,000
2,292
560
5,000
2,333
Dovedale Operating Costs
Building & plant maintenance/refurbishment
Furnishings, fitout & equipment
Utilities
Insurance
Grounds
TOTAL
4,184
7.5% NPV
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
630
570
-
1,200
(1,775)
(1,775)
(2,158)
(2,542)
(2,926)
(3,309)
(3,309)
(3,309)
(3,309)
4,931
3,502
2,173
669
(978)
(2,741)
(4,597)
(6,323)
(7,929)
(9,422)
CoE Business Case Model Variables v2 (2012-01-24).xls
Page 38 of 38
2012-2014
Campus Master Planning Framework – Capital Prioritisation Framework