Estates Risk in the Spotlight: Why This Should be on Every Trust’s Internal Audit Plan for 2026

Estates management is climbing rapidly up the internal audit agenda for academy trusts. In a recent School Business Services survey of 36 trusts, half identified estates as a priority area for future internal scrutiny reviews. For many boards and executive teams, the condition, safety and efficiency of buildings are no longer just operational concerns, they are now central to governance, risk management and financial sustainability. 

With rising maintenance costs, building safety issues and increasing expectations from the Department for Education, trusts are being asked to demonstrate a more strategic, long-term approach to managing their estate.  

A Growing Governance and Financial Risk

Estates management has become a bigger focus for trusts over recent years. Guidance and expectations within the Academy Trust Handbook and wider DfE frameworks increasingly position estate management as a core governance responsibility rather than simply a facilities function. 

In February 2026, the Department for Education reinforced this direction with the publication of its national Education Estates Strategy. The strategy sets out a decade-long programme of renewal and investment in school and college buildings, alongside stronger expectations for proactive maintenance, long-term planning and effective data on condition and performance. For trusts, this signals a clear shift: estate management must be strategic, evidence-based and closely linked to financial planning and risk oversight. 

Trusts are also managing increasingly complex estates across multiple sites, often with ageing buildings and limited capital funding. Rising energy costs, safety concerns such as RAAC, and pressure to demonstrate value for money all add to the challenge. As a result, boards need clearer visibility of estate risks and stronger assurance that arrangements are robust. 

Common Risks and Weaknesses

From an internal scrutiny perspective, several themes appear consistently across trusts.

One of the most frequent issues is limited board visibility. Estate risks are not always embedded into risk registers or committee reporting structures, meaning trustees may not receive regular or meaningful updates. Estate management can still be viewed as an operational responsibility of site teams rather than a strategic governance issue.

Another common weakness is the absence of a formal, documented estate strategy. Without a long-term plan aligned to educational and financial priorities, decisions can become reactive rather than risk-based. Some trusts rely on condition surveys alone and assume these equate to a strategy, when in reality they are only one part of a broader planning framework.

Other risks regularly identified include:

• Weak oversight of leases, land ownership or shared-use arrangements
• Limited understanding of building condition and lifecycle requirements
• Lack of benchmarking on energy use, space utilisation or estate performance
• Inconsistent practices across schools within a trust
• Poor alignment between estate planning and financial planning

Taken together, these issues can increase financial risk, reduce value for money and limit a trust’s ability to plan effectively for growth or capital investment.

What Internal Scrutiny Looks For

An estates internal scrutiny review is designed to give boards and executives assurance that appropriate controls, reporting and planning arrangements are in place.

Typically, a robust framework will include:

• Clear reporting of estate risks to trustees or a relevant committee
• Defined roles and responsibilities for estate oversight
• Estate risks reflected in the trust risk register
• Strategic estate documentation aligned to DfE guidance such as Good Estate Management for Schools
• Up-to-date asset, compliance and condition information
• Lifecycle and capital planning
• Benchmarking and KPIs to monitor efficiency and performance
• Strong links between estate priorities and financial planning
• Effective contract management and procurement oversight

Where these elements are missing or inconsistent, it can be difficult for boards to demonstrate that they are meeting governance expectations or managing resources effectively.

A Collaborative and Constructive Review Process

School Business Services’ Internal Scrutiny reviews are designed to work collaboratively with trusts. Depending on the size and structure of the organisation, consultants may engage with CFOs, COOs, estates leads and site teams to understand how estate management operates in practice. 

The review combines document analysis with discussions to map responsibilities, reporting lines and decision-making processes. Findings are shared with management to confirm accuracy before being presented in a structured report to the CEO and Audit & Risk Committee. Recommendations are prioritised by risk and focus on practical, achievable improvements. 

Importantly, reviews recognise strengths as well as areas for development. The aim is not simply to highlight gaps but to support trusts in embedding sustainable improvements. Follow-up reviews can also be undertaken to assess progress against previous recommendations. 

Authored by Stephanie Steadman

Senior Account Manager Internal Scrutiny Consultant

Connect with Stephanie Steadman

Stephanie Steadman is an Internal Scrutiny Consultant at School Business Services, specialising in estates management reviews for academy trusts. She brings first-hand operational experience from her previous role as a School Business Manager within a Multi-Academy Trust. 

Stephanie developed the School Business Services Estates Management review framework, drawing extensively on the Department for Education’s Good Estate Management for Schools guidance and wider sector expectations. She has worked with both single-academy and multi-academy trusts, supporting boards and executive leaders to strengthen oversight, improve strategic planning and ensure their estates effectively support educational delivery.