ID158 Improving Campus Space Utilisation

The Idea

The university currently operates 43 buildings distributed across the campus. This is a relatively large estate for the size of the student population and carries significant maintenance, operational and environmental costs, as well as challenges relating to connectivity and space utilisation.

Keele should embed within its wider institutional strategy a medium-term plan, over the next three to five years, to review and reduce the number of buildings actively used by the university. This could form part of the institution's broader approach to financial sustainability by focusing on cost reduction and more efficient use of resources.

While such a programme would inevitably create disruption for some schools, professional services, students and other users of affected buildings, it could improve space utilisation, reduce estate maintenance costs per student and strengthen the overall campus experience.

The selection of buildings for review should be guided by clear criteria, including:

• Maintenance costs per square metre
• Building utilisation rates
• Occupancy levels
• Accessibility and suitability of facilities
• Strategic importance to teaching, research and student experience
• Contribution to placemaking and campus identity

Consideration should also be given to how consolidating activity into fewer buildings could strengthen the university's sense of place and create more vibrant and connected campus environments.

The proposal could be delivered in two stages:

Stage 1: Estate Review and Analysis

Review space utilisation, occupancy and estates data to identify buildings with consistently low levels of use. This analysis could consider factors such as room utilisation, occupancy rates, room location, specialist equipment requirements and accessibility considerations.

Stage 2: Consultation and Consolidation Planning

Engage stakeholders to explore options for repurposing, consolidating or, where appropriate, disposing of underutilised buildings. The process should consider the academic, operational and community implications of any proposed changes.

If successfully implemented, the programme could improve campus connectivity, strengthen environmental sustainability and generate long-term carbon savings.

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

This proposal supports three important institutional objectives:

• Reducing long-term estate and maintenance costs
• Improving campus connectivity and space utilisation
• Enhancing environmental sustainability through a smaller and more efficient estate footprint

As financial pressures across the higher education sector continue to increase, ensuring that the university's physical estate is aligned with current and future needs is an important component of long-term sustainability.

How We Would Implement This Idea

A detailed assessment of space utilisation across the estate would be required. Where comprehensive utilisation data is not currently available, initial estimates could be developed using timetable data, room bookings and attendance information, before being refined through more detailed analysis.

The review should consider:

• Utilisation rates of teaching rooms and lecture theatres
• Differences between specialist spaces, such as laboratories and studios, and general teaching accommodation
• Patterns of occupancy across buildings and times of day
• Programme size and projected student demand
• Accessibility and suitability of facilities
• Maintenance and operational costs

An initial pool of approximately 10 to 12 buildings could be identified for further review, with a smaller number ultimately selected for consolidation, repurposing or potential closure.

Where feasible, buildings could be repurposed for alternative university activities, commercial use or partnership opportunities. Where this is not viable, demolition or disposal could be considered as part of a wider estates strategy.

Benchmarking should also be undertaken to understand how comparable universities have managed estate consolidation, building repurposing and campus rationalisation. Lessons may be drawn from both rural universities and multi-campus civic institutions that have successfully reduced or reconfigured their estate portfolios.

What Success Would Look Like

Assuming moderate growth in student numbers over the next five years, reducing the number of buildings used for teaching and university operations would increase utilisation rates across the remaining estate.

Success would be demonstrated through:

• Higher utilisation of teaching, learning and office spaces
• Reduced overall estate operating and maintenance costs
• Improved campus connectivity and ease of movement
• A more concentrated and vibrant campus environment
• Reduced carbon emissions and improved environmental performance
• More effective allocation of capital investment towards priority buildings and facilities
• Greater confidence in long-term estate planning and financial sustainability

While transition costs may be incurred in the short term, the long-term benefits could include a more efficient, sustainable and financially resilient estate. Achieving these outcomes will depend on the availability of accurate and reliable estates data to support evidence-based decision-making and effective risk management.