Future Schools-Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings [1 ed.] 9781859465752, 9780429346989, 9781000701678, 9781000701067, 9781000700459

Citation preview

FUTURE SCHOOLS

iii Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

FUTURE SCHOOLS Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings Edited by Nick Mirchandani and Sharon Wright

Future Schools © RIBA Enterprises Ltd, 2015 Published by RIBA Publishing, part of RIBA Enterprises Ltd, The Old Post Office, St Nicholas Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 1RH ISBN 978 1 85946 575 2 Stock code 83982 The right of RIBA Enterprises Ltd to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 sections 77 and 78. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright owner. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Publisher: Steven Cross Commissioning Editor: Sarah Busby Project Editor: Richard Blackburn Designed & Typeset by Ashley Western Printed and bound by Westdale in Great Britain While every effort has been made to check the accuracy and quality of the information given in this publication, neither the Author nor the Publisher accept any responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, for any errors or omissions that it may contain, or for any misunderstandings arising from it. RIBA Publishing is part of RIBA Enterprises Ltd. www.ribaenterprises.com

Cover image: Shoreham Academy (ArchitecturePLB) - see Case Study 3.1

vi Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

142

18 158

80

38 120 82

Forewords About the editors Acknowledgements Our publishing partners Introduction Nick Mirchandani & Sharon Wright

viii x xiii xiv xvii

CHAPTER 1 PAST SCHOOLS AND FUTURE SCHOOLS Sharon Wright 1 1.1 Clapham Manor Primary School, Lambeth, London 14 1.2 Forest Park School, Totton, Hampshire 16 1.3 Royal Greenwich University Technical College, London 18 CHAPTER 2 GETTING STARTED: Developing the Client Brief Gareth Long 2.1 Notre Dame RC Secondary School, Southwark, London 2.2 Cwmclydach Primary School, Clydach Vale, Rhondda Valley 2.3 Gloucester Academy, Gloucestershire CHAPTER 3 GETTING STARTED: Understanding School Specifics Nick Mirchandani 3.1 Shoreham Academy, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex 3.2 Fir Vale & Watermead Primary Schools, Sheffield 3.3 Notre Dame Catholic College, Everton, Liverpool CHAPTER 4 PASSMORES ACADEMY: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’ Heinz Richardson 4.1 Westminster Academy at the Naim Dangoor Centre, London 4.2 Lime Tree Primary School, Sale, Manchester 4.3 Isaac Newton Academy, Ilford, London

21 34 36 38

41 60 62 64

67 78 80 82

CHAPTER 5 THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX: Outdoor Environments Colin Burden 5.1 Priory School, Upper Norwood, London 5.2 Darwen Vale High School, Darwen, Lancashire 5.3 Happyhansel Primary School, Walls, Shetland CHAPTER 6 EXISTING BUILDINGS: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension Nick Mirchandani 6.1 The Henrietta Barnett School, Hampstead Garden Suburb, London 6.2 Elm Court School, Lambeth, London 6.3 Hillview School for Girls, Tonbridge, Kent CHAPTER 7 INTERIOR DESIGN: Enhancing the Learning Environment Wayne Taylor 7.1 The Charles Dickens Primary School, Southwark, London 7.2 Kensington Creates, Kensington Aldridge Academy, London 7.3 Gateacre School, Belle Vale, Liverpool CHAPTER 8 THINKING LONG TERM: Managing Change Mairi Johnson 8.1 Ercall Wood Technology College, Wellington, Shropshire 8.2 Bonhill Primary School, Bonhill, Argyll and Bute 8.3 Stanley Park High, Carshalton, London Conclusion Nick Mirchandani & Sharon Wright Appendix 1 Design Standards and Guidance Nick Mirchandani Appendix 2 Funding, Area Allowances and ‘Baseline’ Designs Nick Mirchandani Further Reading and Resources Designer Credits Image Credits Index

85 98 100 102

105 120 122 124

127 138 140 142

145 154 156 158 160 164

166 167 168 168 169

vii Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

CONTENTS

viii Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

FOREWORDS School buildings matter. They are the places where every child is encouraged to reach or exceed his or her potential. In that sense, they are the very foundation of the future social, cultural and economic wellbeing of our country. As professionals, architects understand that there is a deep connection between achieving these noble outcomes and designing the setting in which they are taught. Indeed, no other building type inspires and motivates architects more, which is why this book is so important. The role of design in rebuilding the schools estate is at a crossroads. In lurching from inefficiency under the Building Schools for the Future programme to austerity under the Priority Schools Building Programme, good design – with all its off-balance sheet value - is at risk. The suspicion is that it will be replaced by a cookie-cutter approach that, while cheap, fails to deliver long-lasting value. This book is a timely corrective, proving – if ever there was doubt - that there is a difference between cost and value. With luminous case studies of projects that have yielded measurable and substantial benefits, it demonstrates the importance of spaces that are fit for purpose not just for pupils but also for staff. It shows how schools must be capable of adapting flexibly to changing needs over time. And it shows how school buildings and their grounds can become assets that enhance their local community. We know from our strategic ‘RIBA for Clients’ initiative that austerity can be the ‘grit in the oyster’ for remarkable, practical and appropriate creativity that only architects can provide. As the authors of this excellent book say, it is about ‘doing the right things, in the right way, with the right people’. Stephen Hodder RIBA President May 2015

As a sponsor of academies, studio schools and university technical colleges, the Aldridge Foundation has been involved in new-build and refurbishment projects since 2004. We are ambitious for our students, wanting to provide them with learning environments that reflect our belief in their talent. Many factors contribute to the transformation of educational outcomes. Having fantastic staff and ambitious school leadership is critical, but we know that the quality of the learning spaces also makes an enormous difference. New or transformed school buildings can give a huge burst of energy to the process of permanent improvement; changing expectations and creating opportunities for learning through innovative design. I see them as pivotal to the longterm regeneration of an area. We work in areas where prospects for young people when they leave education can be limited, and often the introduction of our entrepreneurial approach to education can be of most benefit to them. Every Aldridge Academy develops ‘Creates’, a space dedicated to fostering social enterprise, creating links with the local community and businesses, and offering training, advice and entrepreneurial challenge for students and community members. Working with innovative architects we have developed Creates to bring the community and world of work into our academies to enrich our students’ learning and their preparation for life. Aldridge Foundation schools are designed around the needs of their local communities. This extends beyond the curriculum and enrichment we offer, and is about much more than sports facilities or meeting rooms. The way we design school spaces needs to keep changing to reflect the way in which the world has changed, if we are to help the next generation be ready for the challenges that life will surely throw at them. I hope that the inspirational examples of best practice in this book will lead to the design of many more successful schools across the country. Our young people deserve nothing less. Sir Rod Aldridge OBE Chairman, the Aldridge Foundation

ix Foreword

We all know that our work environment can make a massive difference to how well we perform. It says a lot about how our employers value us, supports new and effective ways of working, and contributes to our self-belief. Schools should be no different.

x Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Dr Sharon Wright Dr Sharon Wright is a leading education space planner who has worked on school capital projects since 2002, acting as an education adviser supporting client engagement and the design process to both clients and contractors. She has particular expertise in brief development, design review and evaluation, and has worked on all forms of procurement across primary, secondary and special schools. She has written and spoken about educational design in the UK, Australia and Korea, and has supported numerous design projects in England and in the Middle East. Sharon has a Doctorate in Education from King’s College London where her research focused on the history of community schooling and lessons for current policymakers. She authored the Department for Education and Skills publication ‘Designing Schools for Extended Services’ and is a founding co-editor of the online publication ‘Learning Spaces’. She has been managing director of the not-for-profit company School Works, and a senior associate and interim chief executive of the British Council for School Environments. She is an Affiliate Member of the RIBA and member of the RIBA Validation Panel as a co-professional.

Nick Mirchandani Nick Mirchandani is a RIBA Chartered Architect and a Director of ArchitecturePLB, a practice that specialises in designing for education at all ages, from early years to universities. Since joining the practice in 1997, he has focused almost entirely on the school sector, working under a range of procurement systems including traditional construction contracts, design and build and various forms of public-private partnerships. Nick has been personally involved in over 30 school projects including primary, secondary and all-through facilities as well as a number of special educational needs schools and boarding accommodation. He has experience of working in both the state and independent sectors and of new-build and refurbishment. With over 18 years’ experience of designing and delivering schools, Nick is accredited as a RIBA Client Adviser. His school designs have been widely published and appear as examples of best practice in official guidance and advisory documents. He regularly speaks at education design conferences and is an occasional contributor in the architectural and construction press.

xi About the Authors

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

We are grateful for the time, energy and support generously given by partners from across the school design sector. We hope we have reflected your passion for great learning environments and look forward to continuing the conversation. The encouragement and enthusiasm of our colleagues has been invaluable and our thanks in particular go to Rachel Shaw of ArchitecturePLB, and Gareth Long, Hannah Jones and Jenny Thomas at the-learning-crowd. Our thanks also to Sarah Busby, Michael Bennett and Richard Blackburn at RIBA Publishing. This book would not have been possible without their vision and expertise.

xiii Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xiv Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

OUR PUBLISHING PARTNERS AECOM is a premier, fully integrated professional and technical services firm positioned to design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets around the world for public and private-sector clients. With nearly 100,000 employees — including architects, engineers, designers, planners, scientists and management and construction services professionals — serving clients in over 150 countries around the world, AECOM is ranked as the #1 engineering design firm by revenue in Engineering News-Record magazine’s annual industry rankings. The company is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, oil and gas, water, high-rise buildings and government. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering customised and creative solutions that meet the needs of clients’ projects. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies, including URS Corporation and Hunt Construction Group, have annual revenue of approximately $19bn. Aecom: www.aecom.com

Balfour Beatty From our network of offices across the UK, our people apply their local knowledge and use local suppliers to ensure construction projects benefit local communities. On every project we engage with key stakeholders to develop facilities intended to give people the best opportunities to learn. Combining this with our engineering expertise produces quality learning environments that benefit future generations. Our achievements in the education sector include delivering the UK’s first grouped schools private finance initiative (PFI) in Stoke, producing an innovative system build product for the Hertfordshire Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, as well as developing the Retained Estates Evaluation Process (REEP) for Oldham BSF to provide an optimum refurbishment solution. Balfour Beatty: www.balfourbeatty.com

BAM At BAM we understand that designing and building a new school entails creating a better environment and opportunities for pupils, staff and the surrounding community. That’s why we listen and collaborate and aim to make the process itself an enriching experience for everyone involved. We have unique capabilities in BIM and apply a whole lifecycle approach, linking the design, construction and operations phases, so that the school works better for everyone who uses it and is cost-effective to manage and maintain. We operate throughout the UK and are part of Royal BAM Group, a worldwide construction services enterprise. Bam: www.bam.co.uk

Bouyges UK With an award-winning and extensive project portfolio in the education sector, Bouygues UK is at the forefront of regenerating and renewing school and higher educational facilities across the UK. We build comprehensive and world-class campus facilities which enable students to use the most modern, virtual and physical learning techniques available. From innovative refurbishment and extension projects to pioneering new builds and rebuilds, we consistently deliver teaching and learning environments that enable children to receive a first class education. This experience, along with the relationships we have developed with leading educationalists and designers, has given us a real understanding of how to work with education providers to create transformational learning environments. We are proud of the difference we have made with our clients to the lives of school children and students across the UK. Bouygues UK: www.bouygues-uk.com

The Education Construction Network provides a forum where information about forthcoming bid and tender opportunities can be shared in an open and informal environment, at an affordable level that is accessible to all. Our membership covers a wide range of disciplines from architects, engineers and contractors to educationalists, FFE (furniture, fixtures and fittings) consultants and suppliers. All share a passion for education and a desire to seek new opportunities within this sector. As a knowledge-sharing organisation, guest panellists discuss and debate current issues that affect our sector and directly impact upon the way we work. ECN: www.educonnet.co.uk

Galliford Try Galliford Try is a leading construction and housebuilding FTSE250 company working across the public and private sectors, with a £1.7bn turnover. The company has a strong track record in the education sector, having constructed 80 primary, special and secondary schools in the last five years from the Highlands and Islands to central London, as well as early years settings, FE colleges and university facilities. Their education team have developed a multi-award-winning, innovative approach to component-based standardisation in school design: Optimum Schools. Built examples illustrate the approach’s inherent efficiency and flexibility across different scales of project, types of school and sites.

Osborne: www.osborne.co.uk

Shepherd Clients are looking for partners who, right from the start, can understand their world, address their challenges and manage complexity; partners who go beyond technical excellence, credible skills and experiences to add real value and contribute to their business performance. We are that partner. We create, engineer and manage intelligent, inventive and practical spaces that amaze our clients, and help them succeed. We are proud of our technical brilliance, thrive on solving the toughest challenges, and create grounded workable solutions, no matter how complex the problem. Why do we do this? Because, in the end, by pushing ourselves to be smarter and better we can make a positive difference to how people live, work and thrive. Because we believe in contributing to the world we live in through the creation and management of ingeniously practical spaces. Shepherd: www.weareshepherd.com

Galliford Try: www.gallifordtry.co.uk

Wates

Osborne Creating enhanced building environments improves the quality of learning for students. At Osborne, one of the UK’s leading construction companies, we strive to achieve this by embracing a partnership approach to deliver facilities that help schools, colleges and universities achieve wider ambitions. Our experience and the diversity of our work in the education sector brings many benefits. We provide creative building solutions, cost-effective systems and

Wates Group is a family-owned construction company with a single-minded commitment to delivering the highest quality for our customers, while making a lasting difference to the communities in which we work. Wates Education works across all areas of the education sector including primary, secondary, SEN, further and higher, delivering excellence in every sector. Specifically within the education sector, Wates adopts a holistic approach to creating inspiring individual learning environments, designed specifically to meet the end users requirements. Wates vision is to be the first UK construction company to deliver every project on time, on budget, safely. Wates: www.wates.co.uk

xv Our Publishing Partners

innovative funding methods. By working closely with you and continually adapting to the unique pressures of the education arena, we can help develop exceptional facilities that will support your needs for years to come.

xvii Introduction

INTRODUCTION The context With the exception of our homes, schools are perhaps the only building type of which almost everyone in society has first-hand, practical knowledge. Not only do we each have over a decade’s experience as a student, many of us also engage with schools as adults – as parents, governors, employees, and as tax-paying clients. With over 24,000 schools in England alone, the design of school buildings is therefore a subject of personal interest to an unusually wide audience. School design has also been the subject of much public debate over the past 15 years. In this period we have seen the emergence and controversial demise of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative, the largest and most ambitious programme of capital investment in the UK’s school estate for over 40 years. Since then, and despite the changing political environment, investment in our schools estate has continued. Basic need provision of additional school places is at record levels and set to continue for some years as the demographic increase in student numbers works its way through from the primary to the secondary age group. This, and the ongoing need to maintain, repair and replace existing stock, has resulted in a wide range of projects, from the small-scale expansion of existing primary schools, to the wholesale replacement of life-expired buildings under the Priority School Building Programme, to the conversion of nonschool buildings for new free schools. Such variety offers opportunities for architects and other designers, not only those already experienced in school design but those seeking to enter the sector.

As a result of this ongoing school building activity there are now an unprecedented number of recent examples on which to draw. Partly due to the cancellation of BSF however, there has been only isolated appraisal of particular projects, although there has been much debate regarding the successes and failures of BSF itself. This book seeks to address that imbalance, bringing together and drawing on the recent body of work in order to identify, celebrate and learn from best practice.

The approach Our aim in compiling and editing this book is to reflect the complexity and richness of the school briefing and design process, by bringing together and offering a voice to the different parties involved, allowing each to learn from the experience and concerns of the others. In so doing we seek to show how the most successful outcomes are achieved by a combination of designers and educationalists working collaboratively. In Chapter 1, Sharon Wright provides the context for our current situation by appraising the historic links between education and design and exploring the lessons that can be drawn from the last two centuries. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 look in detail at the relationship between the client and the design

xviii Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

team and how this can influence the process of designing a school and the success of the results. Gareth Long sets out the key issues in Chapter 2 for clients preparing themselves for capital projects and developing a detailed briefing document. In Chapter 3, Nick Mirchandani looks at how design teams can interrogate and understand the client brief, explore site requirements and constraints, and learn from existing school typologies. Heinz Richardson shares his personal experiences in Chapter 4, describing how a committed client and an experienced design team worked together to create a building that reflects one school’s particular ethos. Colin Burden outlines the educational benefits of linking the landscape with the built environment in Chapter 5, while Nick Mirchandani looks at good practice in adapting and extending existing buildings in Chapter 6. Wayne Taylor explores school interiors in Chapter 7, in particular how fittings, furniture and equipment can be used effectively to transform learning spaces. And in Chapter 8, Mairi Johnson advises schools that, no matter how old or new their buildings might be, regularly reviewing their effectiveness affords the opportunity to continually update the learning environment – even if the change is to be delivered over a longer period and with fewer resources. Distributed through the book are a wide range of case studies, including new-build projects, extensions, refurbishments and small interventions as well as solutions based on technology, furniture and the landscape. These are included to provide further examples of the diversity and creativity demonstrated across the school estate in the recent past.

Amongst other issues, the case studies highlight the importance of Information Technology, environmental conditions and a sustainable approach. As particular topics however, these are beyond the scope of this book. This is partly due to the changing nature of these subjects, but also because the issues have an application beyond school design and because they are already covered elsewhere in more specialist treatises.

The purpose In reviewing recent activity in the sector, the book is necessarily of its time. In the post-crash UK of 2015, budget restrictions and affordability remain key concerns. Partly in response to the perceived extravagances of BSF, the design aspirations for new state school buildings are now more limited. Rather than addressing the specific needs of the individual school and community, the expectation is now confined to a minimum acceptable standard. It is difficult to argue that in challenging economic times, and with a school estate that needs urgent upgrading, money should not be carefully managed. But does good design have to cost significantly more? Architects, of course, would argue that it doesn’t, because creativity allows more to be delivered for the same investment. In this book we have gathered examples that demonstrate the value of schools and design teams collaborating to deliver thoughtful solutions, irrespective of the budget. As architects and educationalists involved in school design, we know also that the school environment plays a bigger role than simply accommodating learning. Schools are central to

Such a worthy aim can only be achieved through collective effort based on mutual understanding and open dialogue. This book is therefore intended for all those involved in the development and delivery of new school environments – commissioners, educationalists, designers, constructors and end users. It is intended to provoke discussion and start debates – as such, it is a resource for practitioners rather than an academic treatise. In addressing the particular circumstances in which we are currently working, the book offers practical guidance as well as highlighting more profound, enduring concerns. Most importantly it seeks to celebrate what we have learned over the past 15 years and, like schools themselves, to excite and inspire. Nick Mirchandani & Sharon Wright

xix Introduction

their communities, demonstrating the importance and value of education to society. They are workplaces that should attract staff to the profession. They allow young people to grow and flourish. They need not only to allow delivery of the curriculum but also provide spaces in which students can socialise and acquire the life skills necessary for the adult world. Above all, excellent school buildings and landscapes need to delight, stimulate and challenge.

‘A quick sweep of history suggests we find ourselves in a similar position to our predecessors in the postwar era, with the challenges of needing to provide for a rising birth rate and to replenish the increasingly jaded building stock’

1

PAST SCHOOLS AND FUTURE SCHOOLS Sharon Wright

Hellerup School, Copenhagen (LOOP. bz/Arkitema Architects, 2002). This largely open-plan new school is arranged over three floors around a wide stairway that doubles up as a gathering place and an auditorium. The project challenged preconceptions regarding educational space and was visited and researched by many of those involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme.

I

n 1925 Henry Morris, one of the first of a new breed of local government education officers recruited to oversee an expanding education system, wrote a memorandum setting out his vision for the village college, an all-age provision for Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. He declared that: ‘The child would enter at three and leave the college only at extreme old age’. Part of his vision was to design appropriate buildings which celebrated education, saying: ‘We are in measurable sight, if we use imagination and have administrative courage, of giving to the English countryside a number of fine and worthy public buildings…the difference between good and bad architecture is often the difference between a good design and a bad design, rather than the difference between cheap and costly material’. It would seem hard to argue with his logic or his enthusiasm for well-designed schools that catered for lifelong learning. Ten village colleges were completed by the mid-1960s and Morris – keen to involve the best architects of the day – asked Walter Gropius and Maxwell Fry to design Impington Village College, which opened in 1939. It is now a Grade I listed building and a school that still serves as a centre for its community. Despite Morris’ vision and commitment, and his influence on community education in a number of other counties, the village college movement never truly spread outside Cambridgeshire. It was not until much later that architecture and education would be brought together in a systematic way. In this book we set out to understand how education and design are bound together in the process of developing effective learning environments, and to celebrate instances where it has been successful. In this chapter we review

3 Past Schools and Future Schools

Introduction

4 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

the historical links between education and school design, with a view to learning from the past and avoiding the mistakes of our predecessors.

Education and school design Throughout the last two centuries it is clear that school design in England has lagged behind social and educational developments, struggling to keep pace with change. This disconnect has often resulted in outdated buildings that are unsuitable for the curriculum they are asked to deliver. Over the past 15 years however, there have been a number of best practice publications and literature reviews focusing on the sector. It’s important to acknowledge how far we have come in a relatively short time, and as we find ourselves in a new phase of school design, the ability to adapt and reinterpret our knowledge is essential.

The early days England in the 19th century possessed a disparate education system delivered through voluntary societies with the majority of schools owned and controlled by churches (Green 1990). Government did give some financial support to these societies from 1833, but this amounted to a fraction of the total cost of providing schools. By 1881 there were 14,370 voluntary schools and 3,692 public board schools. This lack of cohesive provision allowed individual philanthropists, such as Robert Owen in New Lanark, to open their own schools to educate communities as they saw fit. The

rise of the philanthropists, including Titus Salt in Bradford, the Lever Brothers in Port Sunlight and George and Richard Cadbury in Bourneville, saw industrialists providing housing, schools and other services for their workers. In doing so they controlled most aspects of their employee’s lives, including how education was delivered and the buildings in which it took place. Salt employed local architects Henry Lockwood and Richard Mawson to design his new community, Saltaire, to relocate his workers from the unhealthy environment of industrial Bradford. Between 1851 and 1876 he built a modern mill and an entire village, including a school, all designed by Lockwood and Mawson and inspired by the architecture of the Italian Renaissance. The Education Acts of 1870 and 1902 saw the introduction of state responsibility for compulsory education. Children were moving out of the factory and into the school, reflecting both a shift in the perceptions about the usefulness of education in society and an increase in mechanisation that released children from manual labour. It is perhaps unsurprising then, that the factory model of production was also largely applied to how education was delivered, with large numbers of children packed into one schoolroom. When the architect ER Robson was appointed to the London School Board in 1872 to deal with the anticipated expansion in pupil numbers, he implemented standardised designs that saw children being moved from large multi-purpose rooms to individual classrooms for 40 to 60 students. He introduced communal halls with classrooms around the edge, was concerned with how the building could support learning through classroom display and teacher presentation space, and also outlined specific details such as the optimum amount of daylight for the

Consolidation and debate Board School, Blackheath Road, Greenwich, London designed by ER Robson. This is a good example of his early school building, the style of which was considered extremely progressive for the time.

classroom (Dudek 2000). Robson’s influence was to spread far beyond London through his writings on school design. Similar building programmes were taking place in other urban areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield, and some 40 board schools were built in Manchester between 1870 and 1902. In 2006 it was estimated that around 3,400 pre-1919 primary schools were still in use.

The period between 1915 and 1945 brought considerable consolidation in the education system and saw the beginnings of some experimentation in school design. The 1921 Education Act raised the school leaving age to 14 and there was much debate about the future of education throughout the period. This included a series of influential reports from a government committee chaired by Sir Henry Hadow. In particular, his 1931 report for the Board of Education, The Primary School, acknowledged that: ‘Many experiments have been and are being carried out in the planning of new buildings for primary schools. We understand that the board welcome these various experiments and that the absence of any rigid building regulations has been found, on the whole, advantageous. It is

5 Past Schools and Future Schools

The 1888 County Councils Act had established 62 administrative county areas, and in 1902 the counties assumed responsibility for all aspects of education – elementary, secondary, and technical – so introducing local education authorities. Effectively, a two-tier system was put in place as boroughs with the largest populations were given control of elementary and secondary education, while those with small populations controlled elementary education only. This devolution of responsibility meant a closer link, for the first time, between the locality and its education provision, and saw influential local officials such as Henry Morris assuming control over the school estate. This led to new debates about the role of the school within its community and, in the case of the village colleges, whether providing the right environment and services could stop the drift away from rural areas to the industrial towns and cities.

6 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings Village College, Impington, Cambridgeshire. Designed by Walter Gropius and Maxwell Fry and opened in 1939.

The report recommended that infants should be on the ground floor of primary schools that were over one storey, and that: ‘Sites for new primary schools should be chosen with great care. Such sites should be open and sunny, removed as far as possible from the noise and dust of roads, and sufficiently large to provide hard playgrounds. Sunlight and fresh air are fundamental needs for young children. School buildings should be placed so as to obtain as much sunlight as possible, and should be cross-ventilated’. The Hadow report highlighted the fact that many schools had poor sanitary provision, called for drinking water to be made available to all, discussed the need for assembly halls that could also be used for dining, and considered the purpose of the school library. Looking at the report, it’s clear that many of the school design issues discussed today were just as relevant in the 1930s: ‘Classrooms should be so furnished that they may be readily adapted for various forms of activity. Many of our witnesses called attention to the fact that desks of antiquated design are still in use in primary schools, especially those in rural areas. The seats in such desks are often either too high or too low, and the space between the seat and the surface for writing is often wrong. There is sometimes no support for the child’s back and the surface of the desk itself slopes unduly and is thus inconvenient for practical work. Ample cupboards which can readily be used for storing (but not for hoarding) should be provided, and there should be a number of shelves easy of access on which books can be kept.’ During this time changes in school design thinking were beginning to bear fruit, with the increase

in more affordable single-storey primary schools representing a move away from Robson’s large imposing Victorian board schools, which usually stood at least three storeys high. As well as the Bauhaus influence in Cambridgeshire, there were a number of modernist school designs emerging including those inspired by Dutch architect Willem Dudok (English Heritage 2011).

After the War It is estimated that around 20% of schools in England and Wales had been badly damaged or destroyed during the second world war (English Heritage 2011). With a rising birth rate, and the 1944 Education Act raising the compulsory school leaving aged to 15, there was a need for a largescale school building programme. In 1949 the Architects & Buildings Branch of the Ministry of Education was established and began producing guidance (the start of the Building Bulletins) for local education authorities, including on the use of prefabrication for building new schools (Dudek 2000). At central government level, the design of school buildings (previously the domain of the church, individual benefactors or the local area) was starting to coalesce with changes to the curriculum. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, new debates in education were influencing pedagogical changes and these began to manifest in the schools being built. The 1967 Plowden Report into primary education, for example, took a childcentred approach, placing greater emphasis on individual learning, flexibility in the curriculum, the importance of play in children’s learning, greater use of the environment, and learning by discovery. The need for new schools meant that

7 Past Schools and Future Schools

of interest to note that the majority of plans for new schools recently passed by the board provide for single-storey buildings.’

8

many of those being built were prefabricated and modular structures. Their construction was lighter than the Victorian schools and their look and use of materials more modernist. They were also providing for new educational thinking by creating open-plan teaching areas within primary schools, with better connections between the inside and outside spaces. The Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme (CLASP) was formed in 1957 to combine the resources of local authorities to develop a prefabricated school building programme. Initially developed by Charles Herbert Aslin, the county architect for Hertfordshire, the system was used as a model for several other counties including Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It used prefabricated light gauge steel frames finished in a variety of claddings. Later developments were known as SCOLA (Second Consortium of Local Authorities) and MACE (Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education). CLASP existed until 2005 when it became the Scape System Build Ltd, a local authority controlled company now owned by Derby City, Derbyshire County, Gateshead, Nottingham City, Nottinghamshire County and Warwickshire County Councils in equal shares.

Eveline Lowe Primary School, Marlborough Road, Camberwell, London. This Grade II listed school is an exemplar of the Plowden Report, which lauded child-centred approaches to education. The school was built using the CLASP method of construction.

In 1976 Prime Minister James Callaghan gave a speech at Ruskin College calling for a debate on education that would encourage employers, teachers, trade unions and parents to engage with the issues (Gillard 2011). It was a debate that was to continue and one that would see education increasingly politicised. Incoming governments would start to implement more rigorous checks and balances within the education system and, once the need for places was met, the school estate would decrease in importance – and with it the role of school design – for several decades.

The growing market in education By the 1980s there was increasing concern that young people were leaving school with too few skills and qualifications. Reform was largely aimed at increasing parental choice and offering a market to parents that would see schools become more accountable to them as ‘customers’. Schools were funded according to student numbers and began to be judged almost solely on academic standards.

Essendon Primary School, Hertfordshire. This village school replaced one that had been bombed and was built with the help of unrepatriated prisoners of war. It is one of the earliest schools of its type to be completed after the second world war. Bill Henderson and Dan Lacey were the job architects.

The Education Reform Act 1988 saw the development of a national curriculum that sought to impose a central framework on what was taught in schools, with success measured by league tables based on exam results. At the same time, it introduced grant-maintained status, giving schools the right to opt out of local education authority control and have greater autonomy over their budgets. One of the provisions of the act, Local Management of Schools, saw all secondary schools and primary schools with over 200 pupils take control of their own budgets, with local authorities having less control over how education budgets were spent. The act allowed schools certain freedoms in terms of how they managed and administered themselves, but little freedom in what they taught or how success was measured.

9 Past Schools and Future Schools

Hertfordshire Primary Schools Group discussing the paving layout and landscaping of a mixed junior and infant school at Kenilworth Drive, Borehamwood in 1952. Hertfordshire County Council embarked on a pioneering school-building programme after the second world war under the leadership of CH Aslin, who was county architect from 1945 to 1959.

10 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Ofsted was introduced by the 1992 Education (Schools) Act to hold schools to account on a fouryear inspection cycle, and to counter a perception that standards were sliding or simply not improving fast enough (Marshall 2003). Schools saw the government give limited freedoms with one hand and impose restrictive accountability systems with the other. At the same time, investment in school buildings was not a priority. Many of the system build schools of the previous three decades were coming to the end of their useful lives with little hope of being replaced. After the drive to build in the postwar period, the emphasis in the 1980s and early 1990s was on exams and curriculum. Local authorities and schools did not have sufficient resources to do much more than patch and mend their buildings, leading to a school estate which was quickly becoming unfit for purpose both in terms of suitability and condition. The obvious exception to this was Hampshire County Architects Department, under the leadership of Sir Colin Stansfield Smith, who continued to deliver high quality schools throughout the 1980s.

New Labour, New Approach At the start of the new millennium the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) acknowledged that the education estate was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and operate and unsuitable for modern school use. It estimated that the cost of replacing half of all school buildings would be in the region of £33bn (Annesley, Horne and Cottam 2002). The Labour government accepted the scale of the problem and BSF was launched in 2004 with the aim of transforming every secondary school in the country over a 10-15 year period.

Centrally administered through a new funding body, Partnerships for Schools (PfS), BSF set out with high ambitions to be: ‘The largest single capital investment programme in 50 years to rebuild and renew virtually all of England’s 3,500 secondary schools. It is a programme that will transform our existing schools into world-class learning environments that will enable generations of young people to reach their full potential.’ (4ps and Partnerships for Schools, 2007). Capital funding rose dramatically from £683m in 1996-97 to £6.8bn in 2009-10. At its core, BSF was intended to bring about educational transformation, particularly in the most deprived areas of the country. In other words it was not simply a building programme, but a way of changing how schools operated. It was to be a catalyst that would result in a rethink on how education was delivered. From 2002, the academies programme similarly sought to change the fortunes of those schools that had been found to be failing to provide an adequate standard of education. Many newly converted academies would, at the same time, be able to access significant capital funding to support these higher aspirations. The scope of BSF was wide-ranging. Information and communications technology (ICT) was to be a core component of the new schools (although expenditure was ring-fenced from the main capital budget) and the investment would also provide buildings and facilities that could be shared with the wider communities. Local authorities, schools, architects, builders and educationalists faced a huge learning curve if the programme was to meet its ambitious and challenging timescales. In addition, by 2009 the Primary Capital Programme (PCP) was announced with a further £1.9 billion being made available to spend on 675 building projects over a three-year period.

In 2004 the DfES created a series of exemplar designs to sit alongside the suite of Building Bulletin guidance on every aspect of design for primary, secondary and special schools. Over the next few years design quality indicators were developed, BREEAM environmental standards set, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) was given a formal role in design review, and design guides were produced for everything from community use to sports and outdoor spaces. A set of standard specifications were published, covering details from floor finishes to toilets. Yet despite the conferences, publications and guidance, there was never a clear understanding and articulation of what ‘educational transformation’ looked and felt like. Evaluation was patchy and concentrated on different indicators. For example, a 2003 PricewaterhouseCoopers report on school capital investment focused on whether there was a relationship between the various types of capital spending and pupil performance. Based on qualitative research, the report found some evidence that alterations to the physical fabric of school buildings could enhance pupil performance, eg teaching and learning in technology-related subjects might benefit from updated laboratories

and ICT suites, while improvements to roofs and windows could boost teacher and pupil morale. Unsurprisingly however, the report concluded that capital investment on its own was not necessarily enough, and instead pupil performance was affected by a wide range of contextual factors relating to their overall learning environment. In 2005 the Design Council commissioned a literature review looking at the impact of school environments, after identifying the paucity of research information on the subject. In terms of the school built environment, they concluded that there was found strong, consistent evidence that basic physical variables (air quality, temperature, noise) did have an effect on learning, but that once minimal standards were attained, evidence of the effect of changing basic physical variables was less significant. It is unfortunate that there was never a systematic attempt by government to fully evaluate schools built under BSF and PCP, and the research evidence on the impact of these major capital programmes is therefore inconclusive. Another, more in-depth study conducted in 2012 by Salford University, evaluated the effect of the environment in 34 classrooms across seven primary schools in Blackpool, over the course of a year. This study involved collecting data from 751 pupils and assessing their performance levels in maths, reading and writing at both the start and end of the year. Having assessed different design factors such as natural light, noise, use of colour, flexibility of space and storage facilities, the researchers were able to identify what constituted a conducive learning environment. Over the course of a year, pupils in the study who were placed in the least effective classroom environment, underperformed those in better designed classrooms by as much as 25%, suggesting that pupil performance can

11 Past Schools and Future Schools

There is no doubt that the Labour government stimulated a huge amount of debate about the link between education and design. Schools began to be designed with an eye to the future, having inbuilt flexibility and adaptability as standard. It is not surprising that, given the lack of recently built schools in the UK at the time, study tours were arranged to look at what was happening abroad, most often in Scandinavian countries. As a result, the design of innovative schools like Hellerup in Denmark heavily influenced thinking about what was needed from the BSF programme.

12 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

be profoundly affected by environment. It found that 73% of the variation in pupil performance driven at the class level could be explained by the building environment factors measured in this study. Perhaps this more rigorous approach hints that there is much more to learn from our recent school buildings.

created a renewed interest in delivering buildings quickly and cheaply. Basic Needs funding has been targeted at creating new school places, particularly in primary schools, to meet the growing pupil population. It follows that more secondary places will also be needed to accommodate this increase and to account for the fact that all young people must now stay in education or training until they are 18.

All change, again

We have also seen challenges to our traditional understanding of what a school is, with the expansion of academies, the introduction of free schools, university technical colleges and studio schools, the growth of dedicated special educational needs (SEN) provision in mainstream schools, and a small but significant number of all age schools. Now, before we can design a school, we need to clarify our understanding about its governance, purpose, culture, ethos and specialisms, and the nature of the children it accommodates. The client will not necessarily be the local authority and the school, as under BSF, but is more likely to be central government via the Education Funding Agency for schemes such as PSBP, an academy or free school sponsor.

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government arrived after the 2010 General Election with a clear statement of intent to reduce the country’s budget deficit. The new Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, said he wanted to ‘free up’ schools and lead a rapid expansion of the academies programme – allowing schools to opt out of local authority control and become autonomous with a range of curriculum and staff freedoms. He also put in place measures to allow parent and sponsor groups to set up free schools. In a surprise move, the new government cancelled the BSF programme on 5 July 2010 and asked business executive Sebastian James to lead a review of schools’ capital spend. The result has been a revised set of funding parameters with reduced build areas and a move towards standardised baseline designs for primary and secondary schools. After a 12-month hiatus caused by the cancellation of BSF, we have seen a significant number of school capital projects being commissioned since 2011 not least in order to meet the rising need for school places, particularly in urban areas. Major capital programmes, such as the Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP) and those supporting academies and free schools, have

The austerity drive and the lack of available land in many urban areas has also created a greater need for refurbishment and remodelling of existing schools, and we are also seeing the adaptive reuse of buildings which may have started life as offices, police stations or industrial buildings, now being changed into educational environments.

The history of education building in England has been characterised by periods of rapid growth and longer periods of stagnation. The question of what the education system in England is for and how it should be delivered is under constant scrutiny.

References

There will always be change in education, but at least it is likely to look familiar. The balance of central and local autonomy swings back and forth, different forms of accountability are developed, schools are still provided by a mixture of church and state, and it could be argued that with academy trusts and free schools we are once again seeing the educational philanthropist come into their own. Many of the issues around school design have remained constant for over 100 years, yet there are new areas of rapid development as well, not least in information technology, building materials and construction techniques.

PS Barrett, Y. Zhang, J. Moffat and K. Kobbacy (2012). An holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, Volume 59, January 2013.

A quick sweep of history suggests we find ourselves in a similar position to our predecessors in the postwar era, with the challenges of needing to provide for a rising birth rate and to replenish the increasingly jaded building stock. Unlike our 1940s colleagues, however, we are not starting from scratch and with a recent boom in school buildings there is much good practice, guidance and experience on which to draw. Construction technology has moved on significantly so we do not need to repeat the problems of systembuild prefabricated schools riddled with asbestos that won’t stand the test of time. If we can build quickly, robustly and cheaply without compromising on good light, flexible, spacious learning environments, supplied with high quality furniture and equipment, then we will really have understood the past.

4ps and Partnerships of Schools (2007). An Introduction to Building Schools for the Future. London, Department for Children, Schools and Families. B. Annesley, M. Horne and H. Cottam (2002). Learning Buildings. London, School Works.

Department for Education and Skills (2004). Exemplar Designs. Concepts and Ideas. London, DfES. M. Dudek (2000). Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments. Oxford, Architectural Press. English Heritage (2011). Education Buildings. Listing Selection Guide. D. Gillard (2011). Education in England: a brief history. www. educationengland.org.uk/history A. Green (1990). Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA. Hampshire, Palgrave MacMillan. The Hadow Report (1931). Board of Education Report of The Consultative Committee on The Primary School. London, HMSO. S. Higgins, E. Hall, K. Wall, P. Woolner, C. McCaughey (2005). The Impact of School Environments: A Literature Review. London, Design Council. S. James (2011). Review of Education Capital. London, DfE. B. Marshall (2003). A decade of loathing in school inspection. The Independent, 6 February 2003 (www.independent.co.uk). H. Morris (1925). The Village College. Being a Memorandum on the Provision of Educational and Social Facilities for the Countryside, with Special Reference to Cambridgeshire, Cambridge University Press (reprinted in Ree 1973). The Plowden Report (1967). Department for Education and Science. Children and their Primary Schools. Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). London, HMSO. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2003). Building better performance: an empirical assessment of the learning and other impacts of schools capital investment. Research Report No. 407. London, DfES.

13 Past Schools and Future Schools

Conclusion

14 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

1.1

CASE STUDY

CLAPHAM MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL Lambeth, London

Architect:

dRMM

Client:

London Borough of Lambeth

Main Contractor:

The Construction Partnership

Construction cost:

£2.5m

Completion:

2009

q View from the playground.

p The atrium space links the new and existing school buildings. { View of the entrance from Stonhouse Street.

A

colourful extension inserted into a tight urban context offered the school a new identity, much-needed learning spaces and an organisational hub while maximising play space.

The facade is a polychromatic loop of colour that shifts as it moves around the building. The contextual colours of reds and yellow bricks and the soft landscaping inform the colour palette.

The school had become a victim of its own success as pupil numbers had doubled. Part of this success was due to all facilities being under one roof. dRMM developed a masterplan for the school with a new building to plug into the existing Victorian board school.

In addition to new classrooms with breakout spaces, pupils benefit from a shared performance space and history study area. Staff enjoy a resource room, administration suite and offices. The informal, social spaces that connect the classrooms are vibrant and stimulating, eliminating corridors and offering visual transparency.

The extension sits parallel with the neighbouring Grade 2 listed Oddfellows Hall. The space between the new and the old school buildings establishes a formal entrance with a triple height transparent atrium. The building appears scaleless and is contextualised through colour rather than composition. The pixelated coloured facade attempts to reconcile four new storeys within the height of three Victorian ones, which are connected by a new glazed lift and scissor stairs.

The facade reconciles the interior with the exterior – the coloured glass panels of the exterior are upholstered on the inside, allowing opportunities for the display and presentation of pupils’ work. The dynamic quality of the triple aspect classrooms is further heightened by the window composition. Solid, fritted and clear panels are used at varying heights create framed views of the urban landscape for children of all ages.

16 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

1.2

CASE STUDY

FOREST PARK SCHOOL Totton, Hampshire

Architect:

Hampshire County Architects

Client:

Hampshire County Council Children’s Services

Main Contractor:

Morgan Sindall

Construction cost:

£8.9m

Completion:

2011

u Site Plan showing entry and drop off from Ringwood Road.

F

orest Park is a school that exemplifies Hampshire’s inclusive approach and puts people at the heart of the school and the local community; celebrating creativity, inspiration and delight. Located on the edge of the New Forest National Park, Forest Park

Special School provides purposebuilt accommodation for children with complex learning difficulties. Hampshire’s belief, as a public practice, is that good design and intelligent place making inspires

t View of external teaching areas, classrooms and hall. q Reception and waiting area.

learning and attendance, and encourages a child’s sociability, well being and attainment. Working closely with the headteacher and the school, the accommodation has been designed around courtyard spaces, a typology well suited to schools and a theme recurring in Hampshire’s recent work. The teaching spaces are well connected and generously day lit. In addition to the nine classrooms the school provides a nursery, a hall and a specialist hydrotherapy pool which are accessible for the wider community. Key to the success of this project is how well it engages with its setting. The school’s building forms and materials take their cue from the vernacular buildings found in the New Forest, with large agrarian structures and an attention to the detail of brick and dark stained cladding providing a natural and simple palette for the school. The wider school landscape takes inspiration from the heathland that typifies so much of the New Forest.

18 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

1.3

CASE STUDY

ROYAL GREENWICH UNIVERSITY TECHNICAL COLLEGE London

Architect:

Walters & Cohen Architects

Client:

Royal Borough of Greenwich

Main Contractor:

BAM Construction

Construction cost:

£8.7m

Completion:

2013

U

niversity technical colleges are a relatively new concept in education, offering students the opportunity to take a highly-regarded, full-time, vocational course of study. Royal Greenwich UTC is a coeducational college for 600 students aged 14-19, offering GCSE, A-level and technical courses. Specialising in engineering and construction, the UTC has a particular focus on transport and

q Playground and rear of the UTC, showing the new building.

sustainable technology, and equips students with practical skills that often lead to apprenticeships, higher education or employment. The UTC has two main built elements: a new three-storey building, and a refurbished single-storey industrial building. The new building has been designed to complement the existing one, and the two work together to provide the specialist facilities required.

u Workshop in the refurbished factory building. q Industrial-scale roller shutter doors allow large pieces of equipment to be moved in and out of the workshops.

Key issues include:

Although in need of extensive repair, the single-storey 1950s warehouse was considered highly appropriate for its new use. The sawtooth roof and structural steel frame were restored, and new floors and walls were introduced to make the best use of space and respect the building’s original character.

>

The large, open teaching spaces in the refurbished Siemens warehouse are acoustically isolated but visually transparent, creating a sense of shared learning and interconnectedness.

>

The massing of the new building maximises its visibility on the busiest road in the area, giving the UTC a strong local profile.

>

The new building uses a palette of robust materials: dark brick, flat roofing, aluminium-framed windows and metal mesh cladding allow the UTC to fit into its local context.

>

Workshops open directly to the outside so that students can easily access external areas, including multi-use games courts and a tube carriage donated by TfL.

>

The UTC provides muchneeded activity in this industrial area, increasing the number of pedestrians, creating an occupied urban realm and improving the chances of economic development.

‘While many headteachers may have spent years dreaming about what they would like to change in their school if they had the resources to fundamentally reshape their spaces, they will still need time, support and expertise to help them think through every aspect and how to translate their vision into a brief for architects’

2

GETTING STARTED: DEVELOPING THE CLIENT BRIEF Gareth Long

Tottenham UTC (Surface to Air Architects). View from the enterprise zone, with the multimedia hub ‘the Nexus’ on the left.

M

any headteachers are overjoyed when told that their school will be subject to a major refurbishment project. They understand that this is a wonderful chance to create a new learning environment fit for the 21st century. Yet with opportunity comes the responsibility to get it right, not just for their current students, staff and community, but for generations to come. It can be an overwhelming experience. Once the school is part of the process, the headteacher will understandably be under pressure to deliver the best possible building for the available funding. But where do they start? What should their new school look like? How can they anticipate the changes and challenges that the future may bring? Perhaps the only certainty in education is that things change. Learning and teaching is unlikely to look the same even in ten years’ time. While many headteachers may have spent years dreaming about what they would like to change in their school if they had the resources to fundamentally reshape their spaces. They will still need time, support and expertise to help them think through every aspect and how to translate their vision into a brief for architects. The starting point is often a lightbulb moment – they realise that they don’t need to design their own school, they just need to set out very clearly in a comprehensive brief how the school will operate and what they want the spaces to do. This chapter explores what the brief needs to cover and draws on examples of how proper preparation and a detailed brief at the outset can ensure the school gets the very best from the design process.

23 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

Introduction

24 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

What is a brief? The briefing document can be called a number of different things depending on the procurement process. Most commonly it will be known as the client brief, school specific design brief (SSDB) or education design brief (EDB). Whatever the name, it is the key document that will specify, clearly and with identified priorities, what the school needs from its building to be able to deliver high quality teaching and learning. It should:

The brief should therefore include a comprehensive review of the school, its context and its educational goals so the design team can quickly get a real understanding of how to meet the needs identified. Key information will include:

} The school’s vision and ethos – what is special and unique about the school? What are they aiming to achieve for young people and community? } Data about student and staff numbers, along with any anticipated increase in pupil numbers.

} Be owned by the school, although they may have help from technical advisers or consultants to collate the information. } Tell a clear story to the design team about what outcomes the project needs to achieve.

} Information about the local context, including the profile of the students and any important aspects of the local community. For example, is it a new community, is it changing over time, is it a stable population?

} Explain what difference the project will make to students, staff, parents, governors and the community.

} The curriculum model for the new school, specialisms, group sizes and timetable delivery – how do they operate? } An outline of the way in which they want students, visitors and staff to experience the building – what should the experience be upon arrival at the building, as users move between spaces at busy periods such as lunchtime, and at the end of the day when everyone leaves? } An analysis of the constraints the current building places on teaching and learning. } An indication of adjacencies and key relationships – how do they want to operate in future?

} An indication of how to future-proof spaces for a variety of different pedagogical approaches – how might changes in technology impact on the use of spaces? } Information about extended use – what current and future use might the school community make of our building? } Views on priorities for the school environment – What do they want in terms of learning spaces, circulation, display, light, temperature, air quality? } Practical issues like how toilets should be designed to meet the needs of students, staff and visitors. How the kitchen should be arranged and whether they employ their own staff, or have contract caterers who will also need to be involved in design decisions. } An explanation as to how entrances will be managed during and outside the school day, and information about security requirements. } All of this information should sit alongside a Schedule of Accommodation that identifies the size of spaces required and prioritises the key learning areas, particularly if space budgets are tight and the school may not be able to achieve everything they wanted.

The place of technology All too often ICT is considered only as an afterthought. With the increasing importance of technology in learning, it is vital that the role of ICT is discussed and understood early in the design process. Detail about how new technologies should be integrated throughout the school will be a key element of the brief. Many schools, for example, are moving away from ICT suites, except for use in specialist teaching such as media, graphics and music technology, instead opting for handheld devices. These bring new requirements for charging points, storage and security that need to be understood early and built into the scheme.

Managing expectations It is good to be ambitious, but there are always parameters within which the project needs to be delivered – time, budget, site and phasing constrains for example. Setting out clearly in the EDB what are ‘must haves’ and what are ‘nice to haves’ helps focus the discussions. Enabling pupils, staff, governors and parents to give their views can also create ownership and understanding at an early stage of the process. As in any large-scale project, compromise will be necessary at some point in the process. Knowing where compromises can be made while ensuring the project delivers the vision is a key part of the leadership role.

25 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

} The importance and use of external areas and landscape – are there plans to use them for teaching and learning?

26 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Involving pupils, staff, parents and the wider community in generating ideas for the brief builds ownership and understanding of the project.

Tottenham UTC (Surface to Air Architects). View from the enterprise zone, with the Nexus multimedia hub and workrooms on the right.

Many senior leaders will only be involved in one major school capital project in their careers, and it’s a steep learning curve. Making sure they understand the process they are about to embark on is important. It should be made clear that elements of the brief are likely to evolve and change through a collaborative design process, but only as the implications of any major amendments are considered and agreed by the school representatives. A key to success will be choosing architects who not only bring design expertise but who also want to get to know the school and its needs quickly. The early part of this relationship is critical and worth spending time on. School leaders are often used to being in control, but adopting a collaborative approach will allow the client to understand what is being asked of them, question and share with the designers, and help get the best from the project. Using the information in the brief to test and evaluate emerging designs will create a common language and shared understanding. Where there is no brief, or it is very general and lacks detail,

architects will they tend to struggle with what is really wanted. Trung Le, author of The Third Teacher, says that by describing a student’s typical intended learning experience (as well as the philosophical and pedagogical approaches being considered by the school for the new building), the school is challenging the architect to think more carefully and consider a range of creative responses: ‘The impact of preparation, research and clarity by the headteacher about the aspirations for the school cannot be underestimated – where there is a lack of clarity, it is more likely that a simple formula will be implemented, number of students multiplied by the number of subjects divided by group sizes equals the number of rooms of each type required.’ Le compares it to people buying a kitchen for their home where, typically they think of everything – the number of people the kitchen has to cater

Getting started

Designing a school should require the same level of detailed thinking and it is crucial that the headteacher is aware of how the design will transform from a blank sheet of paper to a building ready for occupation, and their contribution to making that happen.

It is a good idea for schools to get thinking about the project as early as possible. Some schools keep initial discussions between just governors and the headteacher, others form a small project group. There is no right answer, but every school needs to think carefully about how they are going to manage resources, get a good input of different views and expertise, and determine who will ultimately be responsible for decision making.

Preparing a detailed brief allows the architects to really understand the school, but good architects will want to come and join in with the school community to get the full experience and broaden their understanding. Shadowing students and staff for a day is one way to do that.

Usually just one or two people from the school attend the design sessions with the architect. It is always preferable that it should be the same individuals at every meeting to ensure consistency, and it also helps if these representatives are decision makers. They may

27 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

for; the type of energy; the location of the sink; the number, type and size of the appliances; the storage required; the finished trim; the flooring; whether there will be tiles; the height of the worktops; the colours and finishes; the location of lighting and power sockets and so on.

28 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

also want to designate another senior member of staff who acts as school project manager, dealing with the day-to-day issues associated with the design and delivery of the school project. Writing the brief can be a useful collaborative process for the school, encouraging debate and crystallising priorities. However, it can also be challenging if the school is already stretched in terms of time and resources. Many schools will work with an external education consultant tasked with pulling the document together by questioning, challenging, pressing for detail and then drafting a full detailed design brief. If this is the case, the headteacher will still need to make time to assure themselves that the document fully reflects their school and community.

Gathering evidence Prior to writing the brief the school might find it helpful to visit other new schools or public buildings such as libraries, and further and higher education institutions. Typically secondary schools will visit other schools, office buildings and colleges as they consider bringing in more adult work environments, but they should not be limited to these. In order to get inspiration and ideas for buildings to visit they should ask architects, school groups, local authorities, and other headteachers who have been through the process. It is important that visits are well-planned and that the participants do their homework before they go – there is nothing more frustrating than spending a day out of school to see something with little relevance. It is worth being

prepared to travel to undertake these visits as there is good practice all over the UK. Ask to meet with a range of people who can give an honest assessment of how successful the building is. The headteacher, subject leaders, business manager, students and site manager will each give a different perspective on how well the spaces work educationally, pastorally, environmentally and as a workplace. Seeing things which work less well can be just as important in knowing what to avoid. One secondary school headteacher spent some time studying how motorway service stations processed huge numbers of people in the food court in a short space of time, to see if there were lessons she could learn for her new school build project. This may seem unusual, but it helped her define different food service points and circulation routes in a large school project.

Getting it right Sister Anne-Marie Niblock of Notre Dame RC Girls School in the London Borough of Southwark was rigorous in her preparations for her school’s new build. Her understanding of the project and eye for detail helped make the process a success. When it was confirmed that her school was to receive a significant extension as part of the BSF programme, she started her research long before any element of the design process started, including before the development of the brief. Every aspect of the learning spaces was looked at. This included:

} Carpet tiles were tested to establish the most hardwearing industrial quality that would aid acoustics and still match if individual tiles were replaced in future, without showing any fading of the rest. } Light fittings were selected, but only after checking out the daylight spectrum and lux levels generated.

} Don’t do anything until you have visited a range of similar schools, not just those designed by the architect on your project. Find out what works and what doesn’t work in other new-build schools and ask the headteacher what they would have done differently. } Pay for additional expertise where you need it. Most school leaders have no experience of writing a detailed brief or managing a large-scale capital project so should be prepared to collaborate with those who can.

} Blinds were tested to identify the best model to check that they could still be seen through without allowing glare.

} Anticipate the future and factor in additional capacity at the briefing stage. You will always need more power points than you think and it is much easier to create them in the right places during the build process than fitting them later.

} Self-healing display boards were identified, and appropriate colours selected for each particular room.

} Ask for a breakdown of the budget so you know where the gaps are and can assure yourself you are getting value for money.

} Narrower tables were selected, giving the impression of more space in the room, along with chairs that had been trialled by students beforehand.

} Pilot new spaces and test furniture at the early stages. Get furniture samples and involve students in trying them out.

} The design of the fitted teaching wall was identified.

With so much work done, Sister Niblock knew an enormous amount about all aspects of learning spaces and, as a result of this meticulous preparation and the schools’ refusal to compromise on key issues, she got what she needed for her students. Sister Niblock’s advice to all school leaders expecting major capital investment is clear:

} Don’t be afraid to challenge the design team. There is no such thing as a silly question.

During the design process for the new Tottenham University Technical College (TUTC), having a clear and comprehensive brief helped get the best possible outcome from the project. This new school for students aged 14-18 is sponsored by university and industry partners, and specialises in technology and science for sport, health and engineering. Students follow the national

29 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

} Room colour – an interior designer was brought in to suggest colours that would not distract pupils from learning and would complement each other.

30 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

curriculum but also spend 40% of their time working on the specialism. Although the average size of UTC’s is normally 600 students, TUTC is design for over 920 students. With TUTC spread over two floors, sandwiched between a supermarket and offices, the brief had to carefully consider each and every space, describing the types of activities that would take place in them. This is not a standard school and every space had to be as flexible as possible. The brief was clear that to support the UTC approach:

Tottenham UTC (Surface to Air Architects). View of a technical lab with its overhead plug-in services.

} The design of the building needed to reflect a commercial/higher education environment and not look like a traditional school. In close consultation with the sponsors, all teaching spaces became project or activity studios, science labs and social spaces. The specialist project labs were to contain the latest cutting edge industry machinery. There was not a standard classroom in the building. } The curriculum would be delivered through a project-based learning approach. This is a much more hands-on approach with students developing skills of enquiry, problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity. The aim is to improve communication and interpersonal, leadership and social skills. This approach needs different types of spaces to support students

} There should be several large spaces that could be used not only for socialising but also as group work spaces. This would compensate for the lack of external social space.

Examples include:

} The teaching wall had numerous lockable cupboards in it. Each cupboard had a separate key, resulting in the room teacher having a key ring with 12 almost identical keys on it. Easily solvable, but irritating for the user.

} Every space should be totally reconfigurable to allow any type of learning to take place. Therefore large project tables have lockable wheels so they can be repositioned quickly. Science labs are serviced through the Waldner overhead services system providing power, data, gas, water and drainage.

} The electric security gate to the site did not have manual override. If the fire alarm went, or there was a power cut, everything opened and stayed that way until it was reset. Given the location of the school, this created a potentially serious safeguarding issue.

} Students could be passively supervised throughout the building, providing them with a safe and secure environment in which to learn.

These sorts of issues can be anticipated and included in the brief to avoid unexpected and often costly mistakes coming to light once the school is built.

So that the brief remained central to the process, the person responsible for writing it also chaired the design user group (DUG), which met regularly with the design team to develop and approve the final plans for the UTC.

Preparing staff

Since opening, the UTC has been positively received by students and staff, with the most frequently heard comment being that it does not look or feel like a school.

There have been many cases where schools have created a range of innovative teaching spaces to meet their needs for future learning. However, problems can arise when teachers who have not been involved in the design process try to use the spaces without proper training and discussion.

Getting it wrong Even after this level of detailed preparation things can go wrong. The apparently minor oversight can make life difficult for teachers if not resolved.

Staff may find it a challenge to move from a familiar school environment to one designed specifically to support innovative new teaching and learning strategies. To tackle this dilemma, a number of schools have found it helpful to develop a test room for staff to try different approaches to learning, new equipment, furniture, and technology well in

31 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

who, throughout the extended UTC day, would be working in large groups, small groups, pairs or individually;

32 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

advance of their move. Building this sort of activity into the school CPD in the 12 months before a major change, supports staff in thinking about how their practice may have to change in the future.

students in at specific points in the process. What is important is that each school thinks about who to involve, when and why, and that they develop a comprehensive communications strategy. This is an exciting opportunity and, if managed thoughtfully, can energise the whole school community.

Managing wider engagement

Often headteachers comment that it is not worth consulting existing students as they will have left by the time any new building is completed. While quite possibly true, as the current users of the school they will have a view about how well it works and what they would like to see in new facilities. Many students will have younger siblings who will benefit from the new facilities when they are completed and they may well, in a few years’ time, send their own children to the school.

Schools will have a varied approach to consultation at the beginning of the design process, and there is no right answer. Some schools really believe in consultation with students and staff with the aim of making the whole process a unique learning opportunity at every stage. Others limit the process to a very small senior team, bringing staff and

Tottenham UTC (Surface to Air Architects). View into a technical lab.

The advantage of having an experienced headteacher in the lead role during the process is that they know and can manage the staff extremely well and tend to be familiar with the phased introduction of new systems. However, the headteacher will not be at the school forever, and the brief acts as a helpful audit tool, explaining why design decisions have been made so that successors can fully understand the thinking behind particular spaces. There may well be other important stakeholders in the design, including the wider community, who need to be part of the process. The aspirations and impact of these wider consultations may be limited by budget constraints.

incidence of bad behaviour or better exam results? Higher staff satisfaction or higher staff retention? Having a clear idea about what represents success will help the leadership team understand how the desired building will support that vision.

Conclusion For most school senior leaders this will be a once in a career opportunity. It is daunting but also exciting. Being challenged to think ten, 20 or 50 years into the future provides time and space to question what you do and how you do it. Given that this will have to be undertaken on top of a full-time job, involving the wider school community will provide a rich source of ideas and develop their ownership of the new spaces. This will help smooth the transition when the time comes. A school is not just a building so using the briefing process to have conversations about what learning needs to be like in the future will help everyone to understand that it is a change process for the benefit of all involved.

Measuring success References An area rarely considered in a brief is how the school plans to judge the effectiveness of their new learning spaces and what impact they have had on educational delivery. If the new building does not contribute anything to the success of student outcomes was there any point in building it? How will the school judge success? Is it the environmental factors; improved light, temperature, air quality? Is it better attendance, reduced

OWP/P Architects (2010). The Third Teacher. Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

33 Getting Started: Developing the Brief

In secondary schools, specialist staff are more likely to be consulted early on, but they need to understand the context and the vision for the school. All too often staff are brought in for just one meeting, in isolation to whole discussion about the long-term plans for the school, and instead base their input on their knowledge of current spaces and teaching practice.

34 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

2.1

CASE STUDY

NOTRE DAME RC SECONDARY SCHOOL Southwark, London

Architect:

Cottrell & Vermeulen Architecture

Client:

4 Futures

Main Contractor:

Balfour Beatty Construction Services

Construction cost:

£6.7m

Completion:

2013

q Aerial context view looking north-east.

p View of new year 7 base and school entrance. { New school canteen.

N

otre Dame RC Secondary School was redeveloped for Southwark Council as part of the BSF programme between 2010 and 2013. Since the 1860s the school had expanded incrementally on a compact triangular shaped area of land. Headteacher Sister Anne-Marie Niblock helped develop the vision of how the school should look based on research involving visiting an extensive list of precedents, including inspirational non-academic environments. The goal was to deliver a distinctive and well-designed school and working environment that would enhance the location and community, rationalise the complex conglomeration of different buildings and provide new presence to the entrance on St George’s Road. A new building of 815 square metres, and refurbishment and remodelling of the existing building was required. The school’s brief identified five key elements to be provided and improved under the BSF programme of works:

>

The school wished to build on the success of a year 7 pilot scheme by creating a proper year 7 base with all associated facilities grouped together in one area.

>

New dining facilities to allow for a pleasant and social dining experience.

>

A new welcoming, warm and safe entrance for those arriving on site by foot and another entrance for those arriving by car.

>

Circulation: Improving the complex, congested and disjointed circulation was a key priority for the school.

>

DDA compliance: The school had poor accessibility because of the complexity of the buildings. Remodelling and new lifts were required to upgrade access.

The school’s clear briefing, coupled with ongoing engagement with the design and construction process, resulted in the successful delivery of the project.

36 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

2.2

CASE STUDY

CWMCLYDACH PRIMARY SCHOOL Clydach Vale, Rhondda Valley

Designer:

Cwmclydach Primary School

Client:

Cwmclydach Primary School

Main Contractor:

Cwmclydach Primary School

Construction Cost:

£50,000

Completion:

2014

A

s winner of the National Digital Learning Awards for 2013 and 2014 it is no surprise to see that Cwmclydach Primary School is working hard to embed ICT in the curriculum. However, the school is also paying as much attention to the physical spaces so that they support a rich curriculum that embraces new technologies and 21st century learning. Cwmclydach Primary School provides a colourful environment for all its learners and teachers. Every learning space, including the purposely designed hwb@cwm room, has been set out to promote creative, active learning.

u Classrooms are designed to maximise pupil engagement. Everything within each classroom is geared towards supporting and enhancing the pupils’ learning.

The hwb@cwm room began as a test bed area for the school, and the knowledge gained from this has been applied to creating new learning spaces, including a revamped hall area and two new classrooms. All rooms integrate an appropriate use of technology.

‘Modern learning spaces must be flexible and adaptable and must actively promote and facilitate the use of digital technology to support and enhance pupils’ learning’. Gareth Dacey, Headteacher. The school is a keen advocate of ICT-rich learning spaces that can enhance the classroom experience. However this vision is regularly revised based on information gained from the testing and trialling of new technologies and layouts. All work to date has been completed by the school personally, with the headteacher, site manager, teachers and students all involved in the process.

For more information please refer to the school website: www.cwmclydachprimaryschool.com

tt Modern technology, furniture and colour, as well as motivational language are used to create a professional and comfortable learning environment. t Pupils can choose from a variety of seating to help them feel comfortable during learning activities. Displays are digitally interactive and promote independent learning.

38 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

2.3

CASE STUDY

GLOUCESTER ACADEMY Gloucestershire

Architect:

Nicholas Hare Architects

Client:

Prospects Academies Trust

Main Contractor:

Kier Construction

Construction cost:

£11.5m

Completion:

2013

q Ground floor plan

p A view of the heart-space.

q A view of the year 7 home-zone.

G

loucester Academy was the sponsor’s first new-build project and is designed to accommodate 1,250 pupils. The educational challenges were considerable as the two predecessor schools had some of the poorest literacy and numeracy levels in the country. The project began as funding cuts were being applied to academies. The academy prepared well and appointed an experienced educationalist to oversee the project, who was acting headteacher when the academy

opened in existing buildings. From this central role, extensive curricular and space analyses were carried out to enable more efficient use of space. A central multifunctional heart-shaped space was envisaged with direct access to shared practical learning spaces and home-zones for each year group. This resulted in almost no dedicated circulation space and allowed distinct areas to be selfsufficient without affecting the rest of the Academy. It also required a high degree of acoustic treatment. Applied practical learning that engaged and motivated students (supported by more traditional teaching) was placed at the core of the brief and embedded within all teaching clusters. Successful adjacencies of support and learning spaces was essential, and science and design technology departments were positioned with a shared practical learning space between them to promote product design and the application of theory. Throughout the building there are opportunities for practical learning while still retaining traditional classroom spaces for discrete learning when needed. The arrangement of discrete clusters around a central practical project space facilitates flexible teaching and learning opportunities, with staff bases close enough to these open spaces to provide passive supervision. The layout is designed to be able to work in a number of different ways and to anticipate ever-evolving pedagogical preferences.

‘Recognising variety and responding to project specifics is critical in developing designs that accurately reflect a school’s individuality and its particular circumstances, character and vision’

3

GETTING STARTED UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL SPECIFICS Nick Mirchandani

Michael Faraday Community School, Southwark (Archial NORR). Providing nursery, primary school, adult education and community facilities, the circular main building accommodates class bases arranged as a ring around the ‘Living Room’ – a large open-plan learning environment at the heart of the school. A smaller stand-alone pavilion, ‘The Ballroom’, contains the school’s dining and main hall facilities.

I

n many ways, state provision of mainstream schools is standardised. Funding for new school buildings is based on fixed formulae and briefing has long tended toward a ‘kit of parts’ approach, as described in Building Bulletin 103 and its predecessors, Building Bulletin 98 and 99. i

Since the James Review of Education Capital 2011, government has also advocated standardisation in the design and construction of schools, with the explicit aim of delivering both cost and time efficiencies. For the Priority School Buildings Programme (PSBP) and its contractors framework, the Education Funding Agency (EFA) ii has produced standard Facilities Output Specifications as well as Baseline Designs for primary and secondary schools of various sizes iii. These designs are not intended to be proscriptive however, but seek to illustrate how the area and performance criteria can be achieved affordably. In comparison, variety in special educational needs (SEN) schools tends to be more pronounced. Although some may be relatively generic in their provision, others are tailored so precisely to the needs of their students that they must adapt for each new intake. Variety in SEN design is therefore beyond the scope of this chapter. iv Likewise, independent schools are not constrained by particular formulae and standards, other than very limited legislative requirements. v Building Bulletins and other guidance, while intended primarily for state schools, are nonetheless of relevance and value. vi Even in the state mainstream however, no two schools are quite the same. While certain differences are self-evident, such as the number of students or

43 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

Introduction

44 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

the age range served, others exist even where schools have similar populations. Such variety falls into different but overlapping categories – educational, social and physical. Most importantly it exists in the more nebulous concept of ethos – a particular school’s individual style and its belief system regarding its function and place within its community.

Educational variety Although the introduction of the national curriculum in the late 1980s sought to standardise what is taught in schools, each has its own distinct approach to pedagogy, based both in the long-term – through its history, governance and reputation – and in the shorter term, through the particular expertise and concerns of its staff and governors. In recent years, such variety has been embraced politically, for offering choice to parents and in recognition that traditional academic, vocational or comprehensive models may not meet the needs of all pupils, or provide the skills required in newer industries. Like the national curriculum, specialist status was introduced following the Education Reform Act of 1988. Although additional funding was withdrawn by the coalition government of 2010, the idea of encouraging diversity in schools persists and extends beyond specialist status itself. Initiatives from both sides of the political spectrum have led to entirely different categories of school – first academies and more recently free schools, university technical colleges and studio schools. All are funded independently of local authorities and all enjoy certain freedoms when planning and delivering the curriculum.

Other recent developments in education also serve to enhance variety. For example, increased integration means that many mainstream schools now enjoy expertise in particular areas of SEN provision, including learning difficulties, social, emotional and behavioural issues or particular physical impairments. Similarly, school buildings increasingly provide for education outside core school hours or age range. Such activities include extended use by the school population itself (eg after-school homework clubs) and use by other educational providers such as adult education and lifelong learning initiatives. Even when schools are identical in terms of curriculum delivery, the way it is delivered and the structures in place to support this can vary widely. Pedagogical styles and preferences differ from school to school, sometimes with little impact on the built form but sometimes with major implications. An extreme example would be a ‘school within a school’ model whereby a large school is subdivided into smaller units with distinct student populations and educational, pastoral and support structures to match. In briefing a new project, such requirements may be already established and their design implications understood, as often the case with the larger academies chains, or they may need to be explored and their implications tested with end users.

Stationers’ Crown Woods Academy in Greenwich (Nicholas Hare Architects) comprises nine separate pavilions in a ‘school within a school’ arrangement. Four ‘college’ buildings provide the core curriculum for 450 students each, three for students aged 11-16 and one for the sixth form. The remaining pavilions provide specialist and shared facilities.

45 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

Other things to consider: } Does the school have specialist status or strengths in particular areas of the curriculum? Should this impact on the level of provision, the type of provision or its location within the school? For example, does a particular subject require additional or specialist facilities and should it be located in a prominent or central position? Alternatively, should the specialism be dispersed throughout the school to impact on all areas of the curriculum? } Are there particular curriculum groupings at the school? For example, does it have a traditional subject-based departmental model or larger faculties that group together such departments? How do these relate to each other? Do the school require particular adjacencies to facilitate or encourage cross-curricular or project-based activities? } Does the school favour a particular pedagogical style of delivery or does it require flexibility? How

does this impact on the kind and size of space required? Should all spaces be enclosed or might some be open-plan? If the latter, how are acoustic issues to be addressed? } Are all teaching spaces similar or are a variety of spaces required? Are breakout areas for smaller group work needed adjacent to more formal learning spaces so the two can be used in conjunction? Is transparency required between them to allow supervision? } Are students to work in traditional classes of 30 or might the school require larger spaces for lectures, team teaching or lead lessons? Are such spaces required in particular curriculum areas or are they a central resource for all to use when required? Are they a permanent requirement or could they be created only when needed, for example by amalgamating two standard teaching rooms using a sliding-folding partition?

46 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

} Are particular teaching and learning spaces specialist or general, formal or informal, specific or flexible? Might they also accommodate social activities at some times during the day? How do the ICT and FFE (furniture, fittings and equipment) solutions support its use? } Is there a preference towards a traditional model whereby individual teaching rooms are ‘owned’ by specific members of staff? This decision can have a major impact on space requirements as it tends to lead to generic teaching spaces, sized to allow delivery of the whole subject curriculum. If teachers are not associated with specific rooms then a variety of more specialist accommodation can be provided, allowing them to select the space most suitable for a particular activity. } Does teaching and learning occur in the same spaces for the full age range of the school or are some learning areas age-specific? This is standard practice in primary schools and common for sixth forms but some secondary schools also like to distinguish key stage learning areas or provide a distinct year 7 zone. If such distinction is preferred, does it apply only to general teaching spaces or are some areas of the specialist curriculum such as science also dispersed? If so, how does this affect staffing and servicing? } If the school has a sixth form, is their teaching delivered within curriculum zones or within a defined sixth form area? What about spaces for private study? If a sixth form base is preferred, is this integrated with social spaces? } How are SEN, learning support and inclusion accommodated within the school? Should particular facilities be located centrally or remotely? Should they be grouped or dispersed? Is discrete access and egress required?

} How and where are staff to work when not teaching? Are separate working areas required in each curriculum area or should they be centralised? How is the senior leadership team structured? Should they be grouped together or dispersed to allow local presence around the school? Are individual offices preferred or shared spaces to encourage team working? If the latter, are separate rooms required for meetings and confidential activities? } Where and how are exams to be accommodated, in the sports hall and/or elsewhere? What are the implications on the location of these facilities, acoustics, furniture storage and the ongoing delivery of the curriculum while they are in exam use? } Do certain learning facilities require direct access to the outside, either functionally (eg for deliveries) or to allow external learning activities? What services and facilities might be required to support external learning? } In primary or all-through schools, is a nursery provided? What is the relationship between the nursery and the school, are they managed together or independently? What facilities are separate and what might be shared? If the nursery is integrated with the school, is it to be part of a foundation stage with reception? } Will particular learning facilities (eg sports or performing arts) enjoy extended or out-of-hours community use? Are there to be supplementary learning facilities (in addition to school accommodation) and, if so, will the school enjoy use of these during the day? How does this impact on their location within the school and will they require secure zoning?

All schools exist within a specific geographical and social context. In the case of primary or urban schools the area served may be very small and homogeneous. In contrast, large and rural secondary schools may have a very wide catchment including distinct and potentially different communities. Each school is therefore a product of its particular population, with variety possible within schools as well as between schools. Differences in students’ backgrounds can take many forms – economic, ethnic, cultural, educational and aspirational. In turn these may

John Madejski Academy in Reading (WilkinsonEyre Architects) is a development of a BSF exemplar design vii, with discrete buildings linked by first floor bridges and a high level canopy. Each ‘strawberry’ shaped pavilion accommodates a separate house and includes science laboratories as well as general teaching spaces arranged around a double height central resource area.

require a particular approach to delivering learning. For example, schools with a large proportion of students with English as a second language may need different curriculum support structures. Social variety in schools relates not only to the backgrounds of students and staff, but also to an individual school’s particular pastoral arrangements. Typically a school may provide pastoral support in either ‘vertical’ or ‘horizontal’ structures. The former would include ‘houses’ incorporating students across the age-range of the school. The latter would include year or key stage groupings. Either may, or may not, have particular design implications, depending on the activities delivered within the pastoral groupings.

47 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

Social variety

48 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Other things to consider: } What are the pastoral arrangements in the school and what, if any, their design implications? Whether the school has a year, key-stage or house-based system, what activities occur within the group? Should each group have a defined physical location within the school, to enhance a sense of identity and ownership? How and where does registration occur and how many spaces are required? In what groupings are assemblies held and how often? } How large a space or spaces are required for assembly? If large assemblies are required for multiple year groups, how is this space to be afforded within funding allowances? Perhaps associated spaces such as the main hall and drama studio can be amalgamated using a sliding folding partition to allow combined use for assemblies and performances. } If the school has a sixth form, is it integrated within a vertical pastoral structure or is there a separate sixth form base? If a sixth form base is preferred, is this integrated with learning and private study spaces? Should it be located in a prominent position, for younger students to aspire to, or should it be on the periphery where it can enjoy discrete access? } Dedicated indoor social spaces are not particularly well provided for under EFA funding arrangements. In the case of a secondary school, BB103 identifies only three such spaces – the dining area, sixth form social area (where appropriate) and staff social room. For a typical 8 form entry 11-16 school the dedicated social accommodation comprises around 335m2 or 3.9% of the 8,610m2 total funded area. Social use of other spaces is therefore crucial. How

might these be arranged and configured to enhance indoor social provision? } Dining is the largest social area allowed for under EFA funding. If it is only for dining however the space will be un-utilised outside meal times. Alternatively, can it be located and configured to accommodate other functions such as private study, small group work or other informal learning and social activities? Might it be combined with area allowances for assembly, using a sliding folding screen perhaps, to allow for larger school gatherings? } How is dining delivered and in what groups? What is the take up of school meals? How many sittings are required or is a staggered lunchtime necessary? The latter may have a significant impact on design as different students will be learning and dining at the same time. Location and acoustic separation are therefore critical. } Dining has a social function that extends beyond the physical necessity. How does this impact on dining provision, its location within the school and its style? Is the dining space a single homogenous area or is variety preferred? What about students who bring their own lunch? Where do they dine, with their peers or elsewhere? Where and how is drinking water to be provided within the school and grounds? Are fountains or bottle filling points preferred? } If a defined external dining area is required, where should it be located and how is it to be managed? What about other external social spaces? Are areas to be defined for different age or other groupings? Are students to be allowed access to external sports areas (eg multi-use

} At what time do students arrive and leave school? Which areas are to be accessible before and after core school hours – the grounds, the LRC, or social areas including dining? Is a breakfast club to be provided and from what time? What are the implications on security and zoning? } Is a faith room required? If so, should it be sited centrally or in a quieter, more peripheral location? Are particular facilities (eg ablutions) required? Might the space have a multi-purpose function? } Does the school provide lockers and, if so, in what proportion to students? Are they to be centralised or dispersed? When are students to be allowed access to their lockers? Are they best located in registration areas, which may have restricted access, or in circulation spaces? Are external lockers acceptable or preferred? } Where are toilets best located, for students, staff and visitors? Should they be separate or shared? Should they be centralised or dispersed? How are they best supervised? vii } Does the school prefer a central staff social space (the traditional staff room) or is this function best dispersed into different areas of the school? If the latter, where are large staff meetings to be held? Should staff social and work areas be combined or separate? } How will students be allowed access into the site and school buildings at the start and end of the day? Will they all use the same entrance or are multiple or separate entrances (for different groups) preferred. If the former, is the student entrance also the main visitor entrance? Might

this cause problems for visitor access at peak times? If there is a sixth form, will they enjoy privileged access arrangements? } Will particular social facilities (eg dining) enjoy extended or out-of-hours community use? Are there to be supplementary social facilities (in addition to school accommodation) and, if so, will the school enjoy use of these facilities during the day? How does this impact on their location within the school and will they require secure zoning?

Physical variety While schools buildings might in theory be identical, all school sites are different; large or small; urban or rural; flat or sloping; developed or greenfield. All such differences will have a major impact on what is possible, both for technical and cost reasons. Understanding the opportunities and constraints of a particular site is therefore the most important first stage in developing a successful school design.

Large or small Building Bulletin 103 provides formulae for appropriate site areas as well as for the gross building area required for mainstream schools of varying student populations. Where a site meets the minimum criteria, its size is unlikely to be a significant design driver, unless it is constrained in other ways. BB103 recognises however that some school sites fall below the minimum guidance and suggests priorities for the provision of external facilities.

49 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

games areas or playing fields) for socialising and informal play?

50 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

In these cases it will be important to maximise the net area available to students for curriculum delivery and socialising by minimising the nonnet areas (eg the footprint of buildings, entrance roads and paths, parking, drop-off, deliveries and refuse areas). The space required for the footprint of buildings is inversely proportional to the number of storeys; the taller the building, the less its footprint. A multi-storey building is therefore more efficient in terms of land used than a low-rise solution. It is also likely to be cheaper to construct as the area of roof and foundations will be reduced. Within limits, a taller, compact building can also allow reduced travel distances and increase beneficial adjacencies. On the other hand building high can have disadvantages that need to be balanced against the wish to minimise footprint: } Primary schools in particular tend to prefer single or two-storey solutions, to minimise the risk of an institutional feel and to maximise direct connections between indoor and outdoor spaces. } Secondary schools also tend to work best at three storeys or below. Beyond this, congestion on stairs can result in behavioural problems and the need for additional staff supervision. To avoid these risks (and ensure adequate fire escapes) a greater area is required for circulation, thereby reducing the efficiency of the building. } Beyond three storeys, structural requirements can lead to increased costs over lower buildings. On very tight, typically urban, sites however, taller solutions may be essential. It may even be

necessary to use flat roofs for external sports or play-decks, or to excavate below ground. Where playing field areas are limited it may be necessary to provide an artificial turf pitch, as the area of these can be counted twice (in comparing to guidance) as it is possible to timetable them more intensively than natural grass pitches.

Urban or rural The primary difference between urban and rural school design tends to relate to the available site area, as described above. There will also be differences in acceptable building heights however. In rural areas, planning considerations and impact on neighbours may limit height to one or two storeys. In suburban areas three storeys may be acceptable, in urban areas, taller still. The non-net space given over to access may also vary considerably between urban and rural sites. In the former, the catchment area may be very small and transport connections excellent. In such situations the area required for parking and drop-off may be almost nil. In rural areas it may be extensive, requiring adequate space for buses as well as private cars.

Flat or sloping Certain design solutions may be able to accommodate level changes better than others. For example, terraced or stepped designs can allow buildings to follow a natural slope while still providing an inclusive, accessible environment, albeit at the cost of earthworks and retaining structures. An incline can also help to minimise the perceived bulk of buildings, particularly those larger elements that do not require extensive daylight, such as sports halls, which can be cut into a slope. External amenity spaces can also

In contrast, the larger formal sports facilities such as playing fields and multi-use games areas (MUGAs) are restricted in their allowable gradient. For this reason it is sometimes necessary to consider their location first in order to minimise the need for costly re-grading. Once their preferred locations are identified, buildings and amenity areas can be designed on the steeper areas of the site, assuming these are also suitable for access, servicing and so on.

Developed or greenfield One of the most significant constraints when redeveloping schools is the extent and location of existing buildings. Even when they are to be demolished it is usually preferable to build and occupy the replacement buildings first, in order

to avoid the cost and disruption of temporary accommodation. This means that new buildings must be sited outside the footprint of the existing and in such a location as to allow safe and separate construction access alongside the functioning school. While a phased solution can help overcome this problem, it is likely to involve additional cost, time and disruption. Where existing school buildings are to remain as part of the completed school, they must be integrated into the whole according to the same adjacency and access requirements as for an entirely new-build school, as further explored in Chapter 6. In the case of greenfield sites such constraints do not exist. However other costs may be greater. For example, entirely new infrastructure may be required, including access roads, parking and service connections (eg drainage, gas, water and power supplies).

UCL Academy in Camden (Penoyre & Prasad) is located on a tight urban site alongside a new special educational needs school with which it shares certain facilities. The academy is accommodated over six storeys to enclose and shelter a lower-ground level courtyard. This main external space is supplemented by a series of roof terraces to maximise external social and learning opportunities.

51 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

benefit from an incline, helping to create distinct and varied areas as well as particular design opportunities such as an amphitheatre.

52 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Other things to consider } Careful orientation of buildings can pre-empt or minimise environmental problems which are otherwise costly to mitigate. If possible, learning spaces should be orientated facing north (ideally) or south (as necessary). East and west orientations should be avoided if possible as the height of the sun in these directions varies most during the year, making it harder to control heat gain and glare. Though often overlooked, orientation is possibly the single most important factor in delivering a truly low energy design. Orientation with regard to views, sunlight and prevailing wind direction will also impact on the quality and use of external spaces.

} Service connections such as gas, electricity, water and drainage (both existing and new) can impose significant constraints and costs on any design. For this reason it is essential to carry out surveys at the earliest possible stage in the design process, including enquiries to suppliers.

} Many sites have noisy neighbours such as busy roads or rail lines. Wherever possible less acoustically sensitive functions should be located facing in these directions. Alternatively, facilities that require mechanical ventilation for functional reasons (eg science) can be sited in these locations, allowing other spaces to remain naturally ventilated wherever possible. Buildings may also be placed strategically to shield external areas from noise sources.

Reflecting a school’s particular ethos through its built form is one of the greatest challenges in developing successful school designs. It is partly a combination of functional preferences, as described previously, but it is typically more than the sum of those individual requirements. At its core is the ability to reflect a school’s style and organisation. For example, is the school outward or inward looking? Is it a single entity or is it the combination of distinct, identifiable parts; is it centralised or dispersed?

} While perimeter security is almost always a requirement, it is generally preferable for a design also to incorporate a secondary, inner security line for use during the school day. This allows visitors free access only to the public areas of the site including parking, drop-off and, crucially, the main visitor entrance into the building. Such an arrangement avoids the need for visitors to use an intercom at the site boundary and allows a more welcoming approach to the school.

Ethos, organisation and building typology

In identifying the appropriate form for a school, it is helpful to consider alternative typologies. While there is an almost infinite range of such models, four particular types suggest the full breadth of options, with hybrid versions in between.

Campus A traditional model comprising separate buildings, each accommodating different functions or curriculum areas. The number of buildings may

In recent years campus typologies have been less favoured than in the past. This is most likely due to the costs inherent in multiple buildings. A campus arrangement is however often a natural solution when adding new accommodation to existing schools. Like all options, the campus arrangement provides both benefits and drawbacks: } It is necessary to go outside to travel between buildings, although routes may be covered. Some schools consider this a benefit, providing students with fresh air and a chance to let off steam between lessons. Others consider such breaks a potential distraction to learning.

The all-age Chobham Academy in Newham (Allford Hall Monaghan Morris) is designed for students aged 3-18 and incorporates three separate but linked buildings, each with a distinct form and visual identity. The arrangement of elements is designed to reinforce the new urban grain of the wider Olympics-led regeneration of the area.

Lesson change may also take longer. } In terms of building design, there is greater opportunity for variety. Each building can be designed specific to its particular function and with its own identifiable character. Each may also be sited in response to its particular functional requirements, such as proximity to external facilities or deliveries. } A collection of distinct buildings affords landscape design opportunities and scope for creating different character areas in the spaces between. } A campus arrangement can be particularly appropriate on a sloping site. Accessible level changes can be more easily and cost-effectively provided over larger distances in the landscape than within buildings. This needs to be balanced

53 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

vary and students may need to move between blocks after every lesson or may be timetabled to one building for longer periods.

54 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

against the need for a lift within each block with an upper level. A larger number of fire escape stairs is also likely. } Separate buildings naturally limit the potential for cross-curricular activities. There is a natural risk of ‘silos’ within the school and a reduced sense of the collective. } Separate buildings do not allow one function or subject area to expand at the expense of another in response to changing demand. } This model may lend itself to out-of-hours use of particular facilities. For this reason, and others, sports buildings are often separate stand-alone buildings.

Courtyard Another traditional model based on collegiate precedents, themselves derived from the monastic tradition. The courtyard or courtyards provide an external focus for the school. A single courtyard arrangement is perhaps best suited to smaller schools, including primary. Larger secondary schools are likely to require multiple courtyards (which may be of different size, character and function) or a hybrid arrangement such as a central courtyard with ‘fingers’ arranged off it.

Benefits and disadvantages include: } Views into courtyards can help wayfinding and assist building legibility in a large school.

Barnfield West Academy in Luton (ArchitecturePLB) is arranged around a series of courtyards, each with a particular scale and character to suit a variety of external activities including socialising, dining and curriculum use. Views into the courtyards from the interior assist wayfinding, provide visual interest and allow generous levels of daylight.

category, the ‘hub and spokes’ model reduces the linearity of the street to a central atrium, with radiating fingers of accommodation.

} The courtyard can be a valuable gathering space for larger numbers than are possible internally, potentially even the whole school. It can also provide a focus for engaging with the wider community, for example on open days.

} The secondary circulation routes within the fingers are cul-de-sacs and as such, can be ‘owned’ and used by the areas they serve, for breakout from formal teaching, exhibition etc. Just as the street can be enhanced by dining or other functions, so can the secondary circulation within the fingers. This has led to the popular ‘strawberry’ arrangement comprising an open-plan resource area (often double or triple height) surrounded by formal teaching spaces.

} A courtyard arrangement can be used to provide a continuous ‘ribbon’ of accommodation, allowing particular areas to expand at the expense of others in response to changing demand. } Any centralised layout, including courtyard arrangements, can be harder to extend if the school needs to expand.

Street and fingers This model is based on a hierarchical circulation pattern and is included as one of the EFA’s baseline designs for secondary schools. A generous ‘street’ provides the primary circulation route with distinct ‘fingers’ of accommodation arranged off it. The circulation street, which may be more or less linear, can be enhanced with area for other activities such as dining to create a generous and flexible multi-purpose space. Street and finger arrangements became extremely popular in the recent school building boom. They are particularly appropriate for schools that wish to create identifiable sub-areas (for particular curriculum or pastoral groups) while maintaining the benefits of a single building. A common sub-

Benefits and disadvantages include:

} This model may be particularly suited to schools that enjoy extended use as it offers natural internal security lines, allowing general access to the more public activities in the street while allowing individual fingers to be locked off. } The spaces created between fingers offer varied landscape opportunities. While some may relate to the activities within the fingers, others may relate to the street, providing routes to the outside or external dining. } Because the finger blocks are arranged off the main street, each can be extended independently to allow for varied expansion where required. However, as each finger is separate from the others, it is not possible to rebalance teaching space between them in response to changing demand. } While the separateness of the fingers promotes individual identity, it also naturally limits potential for cross-curricular activity.

55 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

} Internal routes, as opposed to passing through courtyards, can be lengthy. Careful design, or a hybrid typology, may be required to avoid the need to pass through one curriculum area in order to reach another. This in turn limits ‘ownership’ and dual use of circulation spaces.

56 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Superblock The superblock model provides a very compact arrangement and is also included as one of the EFA’s baseline designs for secondary schools. Typically three or more storeys, it is particularly appropriate on constrained sites where there is a need to minimise the footprint of the building. The superblock model comprises a continuous ‘ribbon’ of perimeter accommodation arranged to encircle larger spaces in the centre. These typically include cellular spaces, such as the main hall and performing arts areas, and dining which is often full height and open to the surrounding circulation. This central atrium brings daylight from above into the heart of the building and acts as a focal point.

Benefits and disadvantages include: } This is a very dense, inward-looking arrangement. Circulation can suffer from a lack of external views (as is evident in the EFA’s Baseline Designs) although this can be alleviated in some areas using single-loaded balconies around an open atrium. Such an arrangement also assists wayfinding by providing a strong visual reference point. In conjunction, the bottom of the atrium and the open balconies can accommodate large school gatherings.

The Jo Richardson Community School in Dagenham (ArchitecturePLB) is an early example of a street and fingers model. The three-storey street provides the main circulation and dining spaces as well as opportunities for informal assembly, small group activities and exhibition. Shared community facilities are located to the front of the building with the more private teaching wings to the rear.

} In larger secondary schools the ratio between spaces requiring daylight and views and those that can be internal (or rely on top light) is not ideal. As a result compromises are usually necessary with some of the former needing to be located centrally. This is easier to achieve if the school is happy for spaces such as the Learning Resource Centre (LRC) to be open-plan, in which case they can benefit from ‘borrowed’ light and internal views across the atrium. Open-plan dining at the base

looking arrangement, the building form can also encourage and facilitate cross-curricular activity.

} As a single building with limited external articulation, the superblock does not create defined, sheltered external areas in the same way as other typologies. Being less articulated it may be particularly appropriate in an urban street pattern where it all but fills the available site.

} The higher proportion of internal spaces limits the opportunity for natural ventilation. On the other hand, acoustic and pollution concerns may make this impossible anyway, particularly in urban situations.

} The continuous ribbon of perimeter accommodation allows provision to be rebalanced in response to changing demand, while maintaining groupings. Combined with the centralised, inward-

Thomas Fairchild Community School in Hackney (Avanti Architects) is a new school for up to 630 primary aged students plus a 50-place nursery. Arranged over three storeys to maximise the available site the building is a smaller example of the superblock typology with a top-lit central dining atrium providing daylight into the heart of the building.

} The EFA’s baseline designs illustrate a main superblock with a detached sports building. Such an arrangement can be ideal for discrete, community use of the school’s indoor and outdoor sports facilities. On the other hand, it isolates the changing facilities from performance and drama.

57 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

of the atrium may cause acoustic issues however, particularly if there is a staggered lunchtime.

58 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Conclusion

buildings need to be robust, both physically and in the ability of the design to accommodate change.

Recognising variety and responding to project specifics is critical in developing designs that accurately reflect a school’s individuality and its particular circumstances, character and vision. The current trend towards standardisation however, combined with reduced budgets, increasingly proscriptive performance criteria and shorter design programmes, makes delivering bespoke solutions a real challenge. The combination of cost, quality and time constraints mean that it is essential to understand not only the school’s preferences, but also its priorities. Not everything will be possible, and efficiencies through standardisation in some areas are a necessary and valuable way of delivering school-specific solutions where they can have most impact.

Understanding and balancing these twin concerns, the specific and the adaptable, is the responsibility of the skilled educational designer. Whether standardised or bespoke, a successful design needs to offer a long-life solution, able to adapt to changing preferences and new requirements easily and efficiently.

It would therefore be wrong to suggest that standardisation is a bad thing in itself or that a highly individual design is necessarily better than a more generic one. In fact, the opposite can be true. If a design is too specific in focusing precisely on current requirements, then there is a real risk that it may limit scope for alternative patterns of use or future changes. There are cases, for example, of highly individual new schools briefed by a particular headteacher who then moves on, leaving a building that struggles to accommodate other approaches or different pedagogies.

References

In designing schools it is also important to recognise that a new building is not the finished product. Even in the short-term good school buildings need to be versatile, allowing staff and students to take ownership, experiment and change how they use space. In the longer term, a new building should also help the school to develop and improve over time. Above all, school

i

Refer Appendix 1.

ii

The EFA is an executive agency of the Department for Education (DoE), responsible for funding education for learners between the ages of 3 and 19, and those with learning difficulties and disabilities between the ages of 3 and 25. They also fund and monitor academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, and free schools and provide building maintenance programmes for schools and sixth-form colleges. iii

Refer Appendix 2.

iv

At the time of writing, guidance on the design of SEN schools is covered by Building Bulletin 102, although this is shortly to be replaced by a new Building Bulletin 104, currently out for consultation. v

Refer Appendix 1

vi

As part of the Building Schools for the Future programme, the then Department for Education and Skills commissioned a series of exemplar projects. Published in 2003 as Schools for the Future - Exemplar Designs: Concepts and Ideas it is now only available online through commercial or subscription providers. vii Toilets in schools are one of the most hotly debated subjects and of particular concern to both staff and students. Valuable guidance can be found in SSLD3 (see Appendix 1).

59 Getting Started: Understanding School Specifics

UTC Cambridge (Hawkins/Brown) required an innovative building to reflect their specialism in Biomedical and Environment Science. The brief was to create learning spaces to inspire students and prepare them for the real world. The architects brought their experience of designing for both industry and higher education to deliver ‘grown up’ learning environments and social spaces. In particular the top floor ‘superlab’ reflects the UTC’s specialisms providing bespoke and highly flexible laboratory space for up to 350 students.

60 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

3.1

CASE STUDY

SHOREHAM ACADEMY Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex

Architect:

ArchitecturePLB

Client:

West Sussex County Council/United Learning

Main Contractor:

Balfour Beatty Construction Services

Construction cost:

£23.8m

Completion:

2012

q View of the atrium from first floor balcony.

p Ground floor plan showing hub and spokes arrangement. { Interior of enclosed ICT pod.

S

horeham Academy is one of four secondary schools in the West Sussex Academies programme, all designed by ArchitecturePLB. It is also one of two to be sponsored by United Learning and is a designated Christian academy, although it provides for pupils of all faiths and none. The idea of ‘Community’ was an important driver in the design, both in terms of the academy itself and in terms of its relationship to its local context. Following an extensive dialogue, a hub and spokes typology was identified as the best reflection of the school’s structure and organisation. The hub, in the form of a triple-height atrium, is flooded with daylight from above and provides the functional and spiritual focus for the school as well as dining at ground level. It also

provides direct access to those areas of the building that will be used by the local community outside core school hours. These include the sports and performing arts facilities along with toilet clusters, the first floor LRC and two ICT spaces, expressed as ‘pods’ suspended within the main volume. The lower of these is enclosed, providing a timetabled teaching space that is also available for community uses such as adult education. The upper pod is open to the atrium for informal use and private study. Radiating off the atrium are the main teaching wings, each a separate ‘school’ within the whole, arranged over three storeys with practical spaces at ground level and general teaching spaces above. Central voids provide visual connections between the three levels and ‘borrowed’ daylight for the central staff and breakout spaces. The radiating wings create distinct landscaped social areas, protected from the noise of the nearby road by the wings themselves.

62 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

3.2

CASE STUDY

FIR VALE & WATERMEAD PRIMARY SCHOOLS Sheffield

Architect:

Bond Bryan Architects

Client:

Sheffield City Council

Main Contractor:

BAM Construction

Construction cost:

£3.3m/£3.5m respectively

Completion:

2014

q Watermead arrival space from the west.

T

hese new primary schools were designed in tandem, each for 420 students plus a 26-place nursery. Component-based solutions provide flexible class-base modules and separate hub modules incorporating administration, hall, dining and community facilities. Both elements

meet the educational vision and best practice and can be combined in a variety of configurations. Each building is located on site to provide the optimum arrangement for access, orientation, presence and community use. Educationally, the

modules connect to create a logical learning journey across the two storeys, with ground floor nursery and reception at one end and first floor year 6 at the other. The schools were delivered very efficiently because, while the hub blocks were adapted to suit particular site arrangements, the class-base modules are virtually identical. Differing project needs are accommodated within the system, from the design of teaching and learning facilities to fenestration, form and materials. Particular features include: >

Glazed canopies to foundation and key stage 1 classrooms ensure protected space is available, while maintaining daylight quality internally.

>

Foundation and key stage 1 classrooms are located at ground floor for easy, but controlled, access with key stage 2 above.

>

Full-height glazing gives smaller children views out and enables passive supervision.

>

Higher pitched ceilings upstairs relate well to pupil progression, while supporting simple, natural ventilation systems.

The schools enjoy maximum natural light and ventilation with low energy consumption. Spaces are generally orientated north or south to minimise glare and avoid overheating. Automated night-time ventilation, a top-lit central atrium and sectional form all contribute to the high-quality educational environment.

q Fir Vale arrival space from the east.

p Flexible class-base modules to support collaborative teaching and learning.

64 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

3.3

CASE STUDY

NOTRE DAME CATHOLIC COLLEGE Everton, Liverpool

Architect:

Sheppard Robson

Client:

Liverpool City Council

Main Contractor:

Willmott Dixon

Construction cost:

£15.3m

Completion:

2013

p East elevation, showing lower area of dark brick and curtain wall glazing as a plinth to the pearlescent twotone metal cladding.

N

otre Dame Catholic College is the first school to be delivered using an innovative design solution to create architecturally engaging schools on limited budgets. This approach, known as the Liverpool Schools Model, creates a flexible and economic architectural shell in which individual interior components are added to create a mix of learning and social spaces bespoke to the individual school’s requirements. The new school is designed to accommodate 950 students including a sixth form as well as community music services and extensive landscaping. It was constructed in 56

weeks and delivered for a total project cost of £1,459/m², which is particularly economic as this figure includes full FFE, significant ground works and retaining structures, and all consultant fees. The design can be adapted and rearranged over the life cycle of the school, with the clear-span shell concept making it considerably easier to reconfigure the building for another function in the future. The design of the interior spaces is a blend of naturally-lit traditional classroom spaces and more open, dynamic breakout and study areas. Cellular teaching spaces occupy three sides of the building encircling a

t View from second floor balcony showing the range of learning spaces, including individual pavilion-like classrooms and more open breakout and study areas. x Interior spaces with the school’s chapel in the foreground and the performance space in the background.

central zone containing a performance space, amphitheatre, chapel and additional, demountable classrooms. The north side of the building is predominantly glazed, allowing the school to embrace its parkland setting with strong visual and physical connections between internal and external spaces at all levels. Internally, the building’s open design reflects the social and pedagogic requirements of the school, reducing the physical barriers between students and staff and helping foster a sense of community, while also allowing passive supervision. Contrasting with the open, lively nature of the central zone, classrooms are peaceful spaces where ventilation and natural lighting have been carefully considered to create the optimum conditions for focused work. Within the main concourse, the internal elements of the building are arranged as distinct volumes to create a ‘village’ of enclosed and open spaces. Timber finishes are used as accent pieces adding richness and – along with the glulam trusses – bringing a unifying clarity to the whole composition.

‘Dedicated and committed teachers and appropriate, well thought-out schools that also have the capacity to lift the spirits, will always have a positive effect on student’s attitudes, which in turn should improve achievement’

4

PASSMORES ACADEMY ‘ONE BUILDING, ONE COMMUNITY, ONE PURPOSE’ Heinz Richardson

Passmores Academy, Harlow (Jestico + Whiles). The heart space with the assembly hall at its centre is flooded with natural light and provides a gathering space for the whole school which doubles as a dining and social space. The inclusion facility is housed above the assembly hall placing it at the heart of the school.

T

here has been much recent debate about whether school buildings actually contribute to educational achievement. As this case study shows, a combination of dedicated and committed teachers and appropriate, well thought-out schools that also have the capacity to lift the spirits, will always have a positive effect on students’ attitudes, which in turn should improve achievement – if indeed that is the measure of a good education. This extended case study looks at one school’s journey to create a new building, looking specifically at how the project got the very best from the engagement, procurement and design process for all those involved. While we are often quick to analyse where things go wrong, it is equally if not more important to recognise and learn from what works.

The project Passmores School and Technology College, rated outstanding by Ofsted in 2008 and located in life-expired facilities in Harlow Essex, was prevented from improving further by virtue of the buildings and site it occupied. Leaking roofs, energy-inefficient fabric and a poorly laid-out collection of buildings were hampering its teachers, support staff and above all energetic Principal - Vic Goddard, in their collective goal to deliver the educational model to which they all aspired.

69 Passmores Academy: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’

Introduction

70 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Essex County Council had identified a need to rebuild the school and a site had become available. Brays Grove Community School and Specialist Arts College closed down in August 2008 due to decreasing pupil numbers over a number of years, and presented the perfect opportunity to relocate Passmores and re-brand it as an academy. Crucial to the project’s success was a key decision taken by Essex County Council to procure it, not through the government’s BSF programme but via an existing contractor-led framework – Smarte East – which is an alliance of three local authorities in the east of England. This placed the project outside of central government funding streams and more importantly outside of the time and resource intensive bidding process associated with the BSF programme.

In early 2009, Essex County Council approached contractor Willmott Dixon to procure a design team and then, by way of competitive interview and visits to completed schemes, to bid for the project. Willmott Dixon approached our practice, Jestico + Whiles as we had relevant experience in the schools sector as well as an established working relationship. Following a brief office interview they chose us to join them in their bid for the project. From our perspective as architects, the process of securing the commission with Willmott Dixon was a model of brevity and served as a refreshing change to most of the other school projects we were engaged in bidding for at the time. A two week design exercise, an office-based interview for the client group to see how we worked, a visit

A day trip organised by the contractor to an exemplar scheme offered a unique opportunity for the design and construction team to engage at some length with the client group. It was an absolute thrill therefore to hear a week later that we had been successful and were to work with the officers of the council and the school to create the new Passmores Academy on a wonderful site in Harlow.

Interrogating the brief At that time Passmores had technology college status so we knew that technology and creativity were at the heart of the school and its ethos, but to get a more first-hand experience, the design team attended the school’s annual two-day conference. It became clear that headteacher Vic Goddard was something of a larger than life character and both staff and students had

The gentle curve of the entrance facade embraces the new civic space to the west and through the use of bold graphics the school announces itself at the heart of the community. Simple strong materials and the judicious use of accent colours give the school a distinct identity.

an enormous affection and respect for him. The cordial relationship we struck up with him and his leadership team formed the DNA of the project. It was a unique client/architect relationship, underpinned and augmented by having a committed contractor and council client team. Presentations by staff and visioning exercises enabled them to express their desires for the new school and show us what sort of learning spaces would be appropriate. Our team contributed by showing examples of successful projects, presented different typologies of schools and explored different ways of thinking about school design. The highest priority for the building was to provide an environment that excited, motivated and challenged its students. The school motto ‘improving upon our best’ had a strong resonance with the aims of the project and Passmores had summarised its vision for the new building as: ‘One building, one community, one purpose’. The school operated with a house structure which, while an important element of the pastoral system, did not need to be reflected in the layout. The vertical tutoring system through years 7 – 11 helped to foster an atmosphere of inclusion, which needed to be at the heart of any new school. Indeed this consideration very soon began to inform the approach to the layout of any new school. A strong theme that emerged was the desire for a central space or ‘heart’ that symbolised the strong bond between the whole school, and which allowed the school and wider community to come together. A series of intensive fortnightly engagement sessions with the school project team and all the design, construction and council team members

71 Passmores Academy: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’

to a higher education building in Ipswich delivered by the contractor, and a competitive interview at which we presented our initial design concepts, was all that was involved. In all, 131 hours were expended in less than a month compared to typically over 1000 hours and three months in competing for a single BSF sample school.

72 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

quickly began to crystallise the brief from both an educational and building perspective. The goal was clear – capacity for 1,200 students, seven faculties with a central heart space within a modern, open and welcoming building that pushed the boundaries of sustainable design and would be a learning tool in its own right. The technology specialism was to be evident at the entrance to the building and the school and sports facilities were to be accessible to the community, to promote a sense of ownership and transparency.

Understanding the place Harlow is situated north of London on the western edge of Essex. It is first recorded as a settlement in the Domesday Book but latterly developed as one of several new towns built after the second world war to ease overcrowding in London following the mass devastation caused by the blitz. By 1947, a team led by Frederick Gibberd, who was later knighted for his work, had developed a masterplan that conceived the new town as a

Significantly, the masterplan proposed that secondary schools would be the only development in these green wedges. The reasoning being that these larger institutions serve several communities and their playing fields would be an appropriate landscape use. The new Passmores Academy would be built in one of these green wedges in keeping with Gibberd’s original vision. In the immediate area of the relatively flat ‘L’ shaped site are several two-storey suburban houses, a main road to the south (Southern Way) and a local road (Tracyes Road). Opposite the natural entrance to the site is the Holy Cross Catholic Church, presenting a distinct opportunity to create a civic presence. The perimeter of the site is contained by mature and established vegetation. A material palette of brickwork, render, tiled roofs and timber weatherboarding defines the local architecture that is of its time and unremarkable in detail. In order to get under the skin of the place we undertook historical research, a ‘sense of place’ study understanding how the site had developed and a comprehensive site analysis from both environmental and ecological perspectives.

Aerial view from the east showing the insertion of the new school in the green wedge and the Holy Cross Catholic Church to the west, on axis with the main entrance. The central ‘heart’ space with its glazed roof rises above the two-storey faculty zones which radiate into the landscape.

Achieving the right solution As well as interrogating the brief, understanding the school and analysing the context, we also consulted the community, involved the planning authority and urban design officer at the outset, and tested various solutions for the plan form and layout of the new school. A selection of these initial concepts are illustrated opposite. During the engagement sessions with the client team we presented a series of iterative options that were discussed, with feedback incorporated into each successive session. The whole process was carried out over a three month period from start to planning submission, and involved key presentations to governors and, critically, the Essex design review panel who provided helpful input in to the design evolution. In order to help the client group visualise some of the concepts, a series of visits to reference schemes were arranged including a recently completed academy in Lewisham designed by our practice. These proved extremely useful in both enhancing the client/ architect relationship but also to explain some of the more radical ideas we had, particularly the sustainability agenda we were keen to promote. It seemed pertinent to us to do as much as we possibly could to make the scheme an exemplar of sustainable design as this resonated loudly with the core values of the school and built on Gibberd’s vision for Harlow. The preferred solution was unlike any school we had designed previously but perfectly expressed the ethos of Passmores. A clustered arrangement (anecdotally described as a flower), placed a collection of faculties around a central heart space that also accommodated an inclusion facility. Circulation space that had the potential

73 Passmores Academy: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’

synthesis of an urban and suburban landscape. ‘Landscape ways’ or ‘green wedges’ intended to bring the surrounding countryside into the town separated pockets of residential development, each with its own subcentre and primary school.

74 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

The building footprint, while creating a dynamic and unusual form also responded extremely positively to the location of a new school on the site. The decision to limit the height to two storeys to assist circulation and fit in to the surrounding context meant that the structure comfortably sat within the mature landscape formed by the green wedge and did not dominate the skyline. The five ‘arms’ or ‘petals’ of the radial plan enclosed external space thereby allowing the landscape to flow around the building and also provide distinct external areas to augment teaching and learning. External drama space, horticulture and science experimentation gardens, dining and study areas allowed learning and social activities to spill out from the central space. Another product of the plan form is that the entire internal area of the school is flooded with natural light through the judicious use of roof glazing which also enabled the natural ventilation strategy to work effectively. The heart space houses the assembly hall at its centre and has the Inclusion facility above enabling the whole school to gather for assemblies and performances, and providing passive supervision through the day. Dining is also accommodated within this space in a relaxed

The ground and first floor plans

and informal way enabling staff and students to eat together. The breakdown of formal barriers between staff and students was very important to promote the open and accessible pedagogic style of the school. This breaking down of barriers was encapsulated further in the way the lavatories are designed. School toilets are notorious for providing hidden areas for bullying and can be the cause of enormous stress for students. We sought and developed a radical solution. The toilets were designed as open areas that connected inside and outside, each individual cubicle having a full height door, with shared hand wash fountains. The toilets are used by both sexes and all ages as well as staff. They were modelled on motorway service station facilities, are cleaned regularly, designed to be light and airy and, through the use of bright colours, eschew the more traditional arrangements in schools. Of all the design ideas we proposed this proved to split opinion the most. It was only after visiting a similar layout that the school agreed – a real breakthrough and one of the most successful aspects of the whole school as far as students were concerned. The layout of the toilets, coupled with the easily supervised flowing circulation areas, has drastically cut any instances of bullying. Having arrived at the optimum layout of the school the appearance of the building was a critical design challenge. We were conscious of the importance of the landscape context and felt that the material choice for the main cladding of the building should reflect the nature of the site. Western red cedar, known for its durability and natural weathering properties, seemed a natural choice as a material that would anchor the building in its context. Not everyone was convinced however. There were concerns

75 Passmores Academy: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’

for breakout teaching and personalised learning supported the all-important inclusion strategy. The central space, a point of reference and orientation at all times, also contained the assembly hall, dining, LRC and student services function. Circulation between the faculty wings was always via the heart space, assisting legibility and reducing travel time between lessons – a key success of the project.

76 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

The toilets are conceived as light, airy open spaces shared by the whole school community with a visual connection to the outside, incorporating bright colours and full-height cubicle doors. This breaking down of barriers between staff and students reflects the ethos of Passmores and helps eliminate bullying.

expressed by the council that the timber would weather badly, stain and look tired after a few years. It was incumbent upon us therefore to convince our clients otherwise. We organised a visit to a school in London that we had completed a few years earlier that had similar cladding and still looked good. The cedar had aged gracefully to a silver-grey tone and any staining had been eliminated through appropriate and robust detailing. Our choice was adopted and the combination of extensive timber cladding and accent areas of intense yellow ‘brise soleil’, with bright coloured render on the ends of the faculty wings, blue engineering brick to the main civic frontage, and a huge timber graphic proudly spelling out the name of the school, gave the building a distinct character – bold, deferential to its context and expressing the values of Passmores.

Building the vision The project received unanimous planning approval and proceeded to construction very quickly because there was no tender period but simply a negotiated NEC partnering contract. We were retained to produce construction information but were kept at arm’s length when the project hit site. This is always a challenging time for architects as the contractor’s pre-construction team hand over to colleagues who will deliver the project. They may have had little involvement with the project up to that point and consequently do not have the knowledge and understanding that the design team and client have built up by working together over a number of months. That said, the strength of the underlying design was retained and the final building delivered the school an environment that would allow them to ‘improve upon their best’

The building was finished in July 2011 and has been deemed a resounding success. To quote Vic Goddard: ‘In the first term we have seen an 80% reduction in incidents caused by poor behaviour, 300% increased uptake of school meals and 3–4 minute increase in teaching time per lesson due to improved movement around the building. Just one of those factors alone would be remarkable, but taken together they show just how much of a success the work of all of the people involved in creating the new Passmores has been.’

Conclusion It is often said that good clients get good buildings, and the commitment of the Passmores team played a huge part in the success of the project. It is immensely rewarding to work on a project with people whose passion to make something the very best it can be permeates every aspect of their daily lives and everything they do. As an architect it is often disheartening being worn down by processes that sap creativity and don’t distinguish between cost and value, but occasionally a project comes along that reminds us why we became architects in the first place. Passmores was just such a project and it is worth celebrating and learning from. References Goddard, V. (2014) The Best Job in the World, Independent Thinking Press an imprint of Crown House Publishing.

77 Passmores Academy: ‘One Building, One Community, One Purpose’

House logos created by the design team and used as super graphics provide the central heart space with vibrant colour against a calm background. Circulation at first floor winds round the central open space and provides visual connection and opportunities for passive supervision.

78 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

4.1

CASE STUDY

WESTMINSTER ACADEMY at the Naim Dangoor Centre, London

Architect:

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Client:

Westminster Academy, Westminster City Council, DCSF and Exilarch Foundation

Main Contractor:

Galliford Try

Construction cost:

£27.8m

Completion:

2007

t Central atrium with school branding.

layers, relating to the functions inside, create a highly-reflective building by day that transforms into a colourfully glowing beacon at night.

W

estminster Academy is a new secondary school in west London, housing 1,175 pupils and 128 staff. The site is set in an urban context dominated by the Westway flyover, 1960s tower blocks and Harrow Road. The site is also crossed by a public right of way and houses several public sports pitches. The physical complexities of the site are matched by the challenges of working in one of the poorest areas in the capital with a secondary school population of whom a high proportion are bilingual. The new school building is located along one edge of the site lining Harrow Road in the form of a fivestorey building housing all facilities except those used for sports. These are housed in a separate building to allow for year-round community use.

p South facade and external games area. t South facade showing terracing and play area.

In response to the powerful sculptural nature of the surrounding architecture and civil engineering and the need for a fully sealed building, the academy facade is boldly stratified into large panels of glazing, vibrantly coloured terracotta tiles in green and yellow and a series of illuminated screens. These

The rear elevation to the south continues this stratification with deep cantilevered balconies overlooking the terraced outdoor spaces. These balconies act as the primary means of escape for the classrooms, allowing the central atrium to be totally open. Sustainability was a core theme of the project, approached through the design of all elements and the selection of materials and services. Within the glazed atrium, which provides significant amounts of natural light within the building, the system for shading has been designed as a sculptural feature running north/south. The system of baffles, coloured green and yellow in one direction and painted white on the reverse to maximise reflected light, provide effective shading but are made from simple door blanks. The in situ exposed concrete frame, projecting balconies on the rear elevation and the sedum roof are all sustainable features that have been designed to add character to the appearance of the school, while delivering a range of environmental advantages throughout the lifespan of the building.

80 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

4.2

CASE STUDY

LIME TREE PRIMARY SCHOOL Sale, Manchester

Architect:

Atkins

Client:

Trafford Borough Council

Main Contractor:

Laing O’Rourke/SELECT

Construction cost:

£3.8m

Completion:

2013

q The design is a creative and bespoke response to a unique brief – developed through engagement with client and building users.

L

ime Tree Primary School – designed using Laing O’Rourke’s new SELECT modular assembly system – represents a step-change in the Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) approach. As one of the UK’s first ‘forest’ schools, its highly specialised environment prioritises outdoor learning and direct engagement with nature. As such, the striking design reflects the school’s desire to be an innovative,

education catalyst, while delivering value to the client in a post-BSF landscape. The design concept responded to the school’s unique role in a very direct and visible way. Atkins’ design proposals explored how the relationship of the buildings to outside space could be exploited to maximise access and integration of the activities with the surrounding landscape.

p At Lime Tree the innovative use of DfMA has helped realise a vision sooner, cheaper and with considerable panache.

market gardens, outdoor classrooms as well as places to eat, play and learn. Through its use of off-site construction, Lime Tree stands as an exemplar which can help schools nationally meet increasing demographic demands. The ability to combine standard units in different configurations will enable unique and totally flexible solutions to meet differing school cultures and pedagogies. The design is a creative and bespoke response to a unique brief – developed through engagement with client and building users. The innovative use of DfMA has helped realise the vision sooner and cheaper without compromising the client’s vision or design quality. p A low-tech, high performance building that is sympathetic to its surroundings and delivers excellent conditions for learning and teaching.

The solution provides a stimulating learning environment through a series of intimate pavilions which are placed within a nurturing landscape, connected by a network of sheltered external routes and ‘forest clearings’ that define a rich variety of spaces:

82 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

4.3

CASE STUDY

ISAAC NEWTON ACADEMY Ilford, London

Architect:

FCB Studios

Client:

ARK Schools/London Borough of Redbridge

Main Contractor:

Skanska

Construction cost:

£22m

Completion:

2012

q The dramatic underside of the sports hall forming a significant main entrance canopy.

p The central court crossed by upper storey bridges linking general teaching accommodation to specialist facilities. { The main hall with first floor gallery which transforms the space into a performance venue.

T

he design of the new 1,250-place Isaac Newton Academy carefully integrates four separate key stage schools within one larger school, each with their own separate entrance and ‘commons’. The sports accommodation is located within a dramatic sports beam, supported on two-storey columns that intersect with a three and four-storey main wing which contains the teaching accommodation. Courtyards are carved from the brick volume to bring daylight and delight to the circulation spaces. The Isaac Newton Academy has been considered as an important new public building for Redbridge and creates an important new area of public open space in front of it. ARK’s educational ethos has been represented in a building that is intended to be straightforward and legible, while at the same time being appropriately sophisticated and high-quality to both manage behaviour passively and inspire students to achieve.

The specialism of music and maths are expressed through the provision of an exciting performance studio theatre in the dining space and also through the Newtonian overlays which are themed around the use of daylight and the enjoyment of optical effects. The very tight site constraints have led the scheme to be organised as a ring of perimeter classroom spaces which have been planned around a series of significant internal and external rooms and courts. These spaces bring identity, focus, daylight and character to the internal circulation spaces and schools. The key stage schools are stacked vertically above each other on the southern side, and the specialist zones are similarly arranged on the northern part of the site. Upper courtyards and roof decks provide a rich variety of external spaces adjacent to teaching accommodation for social and external teaching use, while bringing daylight and orientation to the academy. The sports accommodation sits dramatically over the parking court at the second floor level making it equally accessible to all key stage schools.

‘The school landscape can form a vital relationship between the built and natural world, connecting children to nature and natural processes such as growing and seasonal change’

5

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Colin Burden

St Matthew Academy, Lewisham (ArchitecturePLB/ Plincke). This all-through Academy for students aged 3-16 is designed around a series of social and curriculum courtyards to create distinct areas for different activities, group sizes and age groups. The natural topography of the site is used to help distinguish the primary and secondary areas.

T

he school landscape can form a vital relationship between the built and natural world, connecting children to nature and natural processes such as growing and seasonal change. The potential benefits of educational programmes that connect with the outdoors are considerable; attention span, sense of wellbeing, self-esteem and personal and social communication skills are all allegedly improved by regular contact with the outside. Because these benefits are often intangible, it is easy to overlook their importance, but in doing so, vital opportunities to enhance learning achievements, group skills and social development (all of which can substantially contribute towards quantifiable outcomes) are lost. In this respect, access to well-designed, stimulating school grounds can and should be a core ingredient in planning the curriculum across all ages. Accessible outdoor space in schools is not limited to natural environments or contact with nature, but requires both formal and informal hard and soft spaces. The inclusion of specialist spaces that support vocational or project-based learning (such as an outdoor performance area or construction space) expand the variety of the learning experiences offered. The process of designing school grounds requires a keen awareness of the need for both planned spaces (ie formal curriculum delivery such as outdoor sports) and unplanned spaces that can support a variety of casual learning or social settings. These are important considerations that should determine how the layout of school grounds is approached. The flow and sequencing of external spaces, levels of access, security and supervision required, will all underpin how successfully the spaces can operate and contribute to the daily life of the school. Ultimately it will be the school’s own practices and preferences that

87 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

Introduction

88 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

will determine the success or otherwise of their outdoor environment. But a well thought-through layout can substantially increase the options available and allow for future adaptation as needs and practices change and develop over time. In this respect, the designer’s job is to understand the school’s current culture of using outside spaces and whether it has the potential to increase in the future. An adaptable design should avoid being overly prescriptive and instead focus on creating a robust framework of external spaces that a school can take ownership of, value, and develop.

Key issues The Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF) sought to achieve a transformation in learning. Perhaps the single area most in need of a transformational approach is the design of outside spaces, particularly at secondary school level. Through a combination of neglect and under-investment, much of the outdoor school environment has become a sterile desert of mown grass, bare earth and tarmac, offering few opportunities for stimulating and imaginative use. In its 2008 report, ‘Learning Outside the Classroom: How Far Should You Go?’, Ofsted concluded that when planned and implemented well, learning outside the classroom contributed significantly to raising standards and improving pupils’ personal, social and emotional development. It was most successful when integrated into long-term curriculum planning and closely linked to classroom activities. In order to support this relationship when planning a new or refurbished school, the adjacency diagram needs to consider functional connectivity between internal and external spaces. If the early

space planning ignores these relationships a critically important element in good educational design is lost.

Planning the school environment Building Bulletin 103 Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools (which replaced the previous Building Bulletins 98 and 99), sets out a nonstatutory recommendation for external areas in school grounds. As described in Chapter 3, these include net, and non-net areas plus supplementary provision for community and third party use. The recommendations for net site areas include five sub-categories of external space: } Soft outdoor PE (pitches and playing fields). } Hard outdoor PE. } Soft informal and social areas. } Hard informal and social areas. } Habitat areas. The guidelines state that: ‘A variety of informal and social areas should be created to suit learning development and cultural needs of pupils during breaks as well as before and after school, and for a range of more formal curriculum needs’. Without a further layer of development however, these recommendations are little more than basic area standards. By placing the emphasis on quantitative rather than qualitative assessment, BB103 missed an opportunity to address the poor

St Ambrose Barlow RC High School, (AHR / Plincke). Imaginatively developed school grounds with a variety of learning and social settings.

89 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

BB103 compliant school grounds that only considers quantity.

90 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

quality of most school grounds. In the absence of a more balanced approach that considers both quantity and quality, hard landscaping equates too easily to tarmac and soft landscaping to grass, resulting in poor, uninspiring and soulless external learning environments. An alternative approach is to overlay the spatial requirements with a matrix of potential landscape quality indicators. These could include: } Accessibility. Are external spaces easily accessible from key social and curriculum areas such as dining, science, art, music, drama and design technology?

Curriculum provision The labelling of outdoor spaces is helpful in the initial site organisation stages of the design process. It can assist with the development of the adjacency diagram and identifies opportunities for teaching outside. So an arts inspiration garden, geology trail or science garden and pond are useful in organising the site, although care needs to be taken not to design spaces that are too prescriptive. Such an approach misses out on a fundamental advantage of learning outdoors, it is different to learning indoors. The outdoor environment presents an opportunity to blur the boundaries between curriculum areas (particularly with project-based learning) and, from the pupil’s perspective, between work and play.

} Curriculum provision. Does the design of outdoor spaces support a range of different learning and teaching styles? Do they provide opportunities for different activities such as individual and personalised learning, group working, peer presentation and performance? } Social provision. Do the external spaces offer a variety of social settings, from quiet, reflective spaces to noisy, robust ones for letting-off steam? Are there both formal and informal seating options? Does the design prevent active ball games from dominating other uses? Using a quantity assessment overlaid with quality indicators will encourage more interesting and diverse solutions. Site planning can more effectively respond to the adjacency diagram. Outdoor learning can take on a more varied flavour, whether planned (a science class at the weather station on the terrace) or unplanned (a drama class outside in the amphitheatre when the weather is good). These flexible scenarios greatly enrich the learners’ experience.

A typical site planning diagram with a hierarchy of external areas from a welcoming threshold to secure breakout spaces.

Social provision If we expect pupils to behave in a civilised manner we need to provide a civilising environment. All too common are vast areas of worn and patched tarmac, trampled and muddy grass, broken benches and overflowing litterbins. Yet such environments, sterile and unappealing as they are, would most likely meet the area requirements of BB103. The alternative quality matrix approach not only helps build the adjacency diagram for well-connected outdoor learning, it can encourage consideration of social settings. For most of the year, the most important social space in the school is the outside. It is therefore a crucial part of the school’s overall spatial hierarchy. Instead of the traditional all-purpose playground, the school grounds should provide spaces for a range of different social activities. These should include an external dining area, ideally directly accessible from internal dining and with ample seating and preferably some type of shelter. A partially covered courtyard is ideal in providing a tempered environment where dining can be contained and easily supervised. Larger areas for active, more robust play can where possible be

linked to hard courts or multi-use games areas. Where these are accessible at break times, physical activity can be promoted without the landscape becoming dominated by ball games. A careful configuration of seating, including incidental seating opportunities, such as wide steps, assist in creating more variety for outdoor socialising. Variety is not only important to address preferences for quiet, reflective spaces or active, noisy ones but also to recognise the different cultural needs of students. In this respect, style is less important than variety and configuration. External social spaces also need to be age appropriate. While this is especially true in allthrough schools, even in secondary schools the zoning of an area for year 7 pupils away from the older students can be beneficial. It is preferable in an all-through school that the very youngest pupils’ outside play spaces are both physically and acoustically separate to foster a nonthreatening environment. This can be achieved with careful site planning and building positioning. Nursery and reception students should be able to breakout from their class bases directly into secure, well-supervised patio style gardens with ample opportunities for sensory experiences such as sand and water play. These secure gardens can then be linked to larger play areas for break time and curriculum use such as storytelling. The use of low-raised growing beds and tricycle circuits can add interest to early years spaces and help break up larger areas into active and quiet play zones. Covered space, providing shade and shelter, significantly extends the seasonal use of these areas. Nursery and reception spaces should be secure for child safeguarding but directly accessible from the school drop-off to enable parents and carers to escort the youngest pupils directly to their class

91 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

The landscape should therefore be seen as more than simply an outdoor classroom for teaching the same indoor lessons but in the sunshine. Instead, it should offer alternative learning challenges, that complement those taking place inside, and cross-curricular activities that foster greater levels of creative enquiry and collaborative working. As the Ofsted study identified, when planned and implemented well, learning outside the classroom contributes significantly to raising achievement. Once outdoor learning is valued as a distinct and important resource, it becomes less prone to neglect and budget reductions.

92 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

bases. Such an arrangement assists the overall site zoning, with the early years play located in a secure zone towards the front of the building and older pupils playing deeper within the site, behind the secure perimeter. This can often achieve the physical and acoustic separation between early years and older pupils although care needs to be taken to ensure that road noise and pollution at the front of the building do not outweigh the benefits of direct access to the early years areas

Designing for Extended Schools The use of school facilities by the wider community has expanded significantly in the past 20 years. Sports facilities are often rented out to third parties, school halls are used for local events and classrooms, IT suites and LRCs can have an adult education or community function that extends the opening hours of the school. The site planning and early adjacency diagrams therefore need to consider how extended use may influence the number and configuration of building entrances, location of parking and the positioning of secure fence lines. As schools increasingly become integrated, multipurpose facilities, a balance needs to be sought between providing a safe and secure environment for pupils and the wish for a welcoming and inclusive, community-focused environment. A large part of the solution lies in understanding what needs to be accessible and when, coupled with a realistic assessment of how this might change over time. Placing those facilities with a community use closer to the access points and developing

a strategy for secure zoning within the site at the outset can help avoid the addition later on of ad hoc security fences. In many instances, the building frontage itself can form the secure line, presenting a welcoming appearance and avoiding the need to cross an added layer of security fencing before reaching the front entrance. Security lines within and around the school site need to be appropriate to the areas being secured and the level of risks involved. The creation of a threshold space between the site boundary and the main building entrance can act as a buffer between the wider community and the safe learning environment. The threshold space also provides an area for the school to showcase its successes and a place for parents and carers to meet and socialise.

Addressing barriers to outside learning It is too easy to blame the failure to deliver highquality, imaginative and stimulating school grounds on budget constraints. The common perception is that they are a desirable but inessential enhancement. If good landscape design is only considered to be an add-on, when budgets change it can just as easily be taken off. The more important question is to ask why school grounds are not valued more, when there is a body of research, both quantifiable and anecdotal, that demonstrates the benefits of high quality external spaces in schools. The disconnect between the evidence and the delivery is of particular concern as we become

Improving the experience of school grounds begins with an understanding that creative thought and enquiry is not directly measurable in grade-driven school league tables. Research undertaken by the New Economics Foundation saw increased levels of self-confidence, social skills, communication, motivation and concentration among those students participating in ‘forest schools’ exercises. These are allimportant life skills for building a more capable and creative society. Yet such skills do not necessarily lead directly to increased league table positions. The introduction of a standardised national curriculum removed from schools the ability to adapt a syllabus based upon local or regional needs. For example, school farms, once commonplace at rural secondary schools have now all but disappeared.

in school grounds. Barriers to a stimulating and thought-provoking external environment have an impact on all students. At one end of the scale they result in the failure to deliver the inspiration and experience to satisfy the brightest students, while less able students (who might fare better with a more vocational education) risk becoming marginalised. The ultimate impact is felt by wider society – restricting the ability of students to think creatively, to enquire and observe, in turn reduces their ability to innovate in the future. Addressing the barriers to high quality, stimulating external spaces begins by ensuring that schools are well planned and built to facilitate varied outdoor activities. In turn this will encourage a renewed culture of outdoor learning and of valuing school grounds.

Good Practice Guide: Key considerations for planning school grounds Key considerations in developing the landscape masterplan for a new or remodelled site fall into the following categories: } Site characteristics.

While the BSF programme sought to achieve a transformation in learning and teaching, a whole culture of outdoor learning among teachers had been lost since the educational reforms of the 1980s and the emphasis placed on league tables. The replacement to the BSF programme has an even narrower focus on core curriculum subjects and places yet more pressure on good design

} Orientation. } Presence and security. } Pedagogy and teaching styles. } Materials.

93 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

increasingly risk-averse to our children exploring other landscapes, such as public parks or common land, without close supervision. An increasingly sanitised generation of young people whose formative experiences are largely devoid of contact and engagement with the natural world is especially worrying, as it will be this same generation facing unprecedented environmental change. The barriers to re-connecting with the outside are numerous, but in failing to overcome them we are simply compounding a lack of awareness, empathy and ability to understand the changing world around us.

94 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

These headings help inform a checklist of questions to consider for each school project.

Site characteristics Early survey work is essential to inform design development, including a clearly defined site boundary plan, points of access and topographic information. Where trees exist on the site, grading the condition of each tree at the outset can help inform the site arrangement. Wherever possible, the retention of trees of the highest quality will minimise planning risk. Trees also provide shade, a resource for curriculum material and increased biodiversity. Organising the school layout to integrate existing trees also provides a mature setting for new buildings.

St Mary’s Catholic College, Blackpool (Nightingale Architects (IBI Group) / Plincke). A site masterplan for a large secondary school that integrates existing landscape features, making best use of the areas available.

An ecology report will identify the value of the site for its wildlife interest, noting the likely presence of protected species and making recommendations for any further, more detailed surveys. Integrating any identified features of wildlife value into the BB103 habitat areas has the dual benefit of protecting and potentially enhancing the feature and providing a further source of curriculum interest, such as ecological cycles. Areas of existing and potential interest should wherever possible be connected to each other to create ecological corridors. Retained hedges, even those of a single species, can offer value as a migration route in more urban environments. The use of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) can also be integrated into the landscape design to maximise ecological opportunities and curriculum resource. Where a SUDS includes areas of open water (permanently or seasonally), these can be separated with low fences to denote supervised curriculum access only.

The quality of external areas will be significantly affected by their orientation, providing exposure to, or protection from, direct sunlight, noise sources or the prevailing wind. These will influence not only the comfort of students but also the choice and arrangements of planting. Playing fields and hard courts, unless floodlit, are best orientated with the direction of play approximately 5% off north - south. This orientation is to reduce the impact of glare from low sun angles.

Presence and security A school’s physical presence within its surroundings is important in creating a sense of place in the community and street scene. A well-located school can aid natural orientation and wayfinding. A school located deep within its site has the reverse effect. It makes the entrance more difficult to identify and increases the amount of non-net space. However, the need to maintain an existing school in operation while its replacement is constructed on the same site, often results in an underused and difficult to supervise no-man’s land between the new school building and the street. In this instance other redevelopment options that require phasing and decanting should be considered. Alternatively facilities with both community and school use, such as hard courts within a secure fenced boundary can (with careful site planning) utilise this otherwise semiredundant space. Agreeing the site security and access strategy at an early stage is essential. Resolving questions of which parts of the site need to be made secure, the levels of community access – where and when - will all help to inform the security strategy as an

integral consideration and not an afterthought. The clear segregation of vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists, and of cars from delivery and refuse areas, requires careful consideration to ensure a safe environment. On site car drop-off and bus/coach pick up/set down introduces other organisational constraints. In particular, a strong presumption that buses and coaches should not undertake reverse manoeuvres on the school site can influence space planning. Investigating the direction from which students will be arriving, including nearby transport connections such as bus stops, pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes, can inform the location of entrance points. It is preferable for students to enter the site as early as possible from the surrounding road network as part of a Safe Routes to School strategy rather than a single main entrance. Once on site, cycle storage for staff and students should be provided in separately secured, covered areas with good passive supervision, eg from the school’s administration office, and within the secure perimeter. Additional cycle hoops can be provided close to building entrances for visitors. Proximity of cycle storage to changing and showering facilities is important in encouraging the take up of cycling. In preparing a landscape masterplan, early consideration of the school’s travel plan and the local planning authority’s parking standards is also important. Car parking requirements for staff and visitors, as well as arrangements for student drop off and pick up, need to be established at the outset. The nature of drop off means that it tends to be more concentrated and requires a quicker turnaround time than the after-school pick up. Parking for disabled staff and visitors needs to be close to the school’s main entrance and preferably within 25m. If the school is to have extended use of facilities, such as a sports hall,

95 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

Orientation

96 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

this may require additional parking for coaches or minibuses. If the facilities for extended use have separate community entrances, disabled parking is recommended within 25m of each.

can accommodate future change and allow the adoption of new teaching styles or expansion for an increasing student roll.

Materials Pedagogy and learning styles Understanding a school’s pedagogical style and approach, for example to personalised, projectbased or vocational learning, can directly influence the design of outside spaces. Well-designed external spaces can either support learning outside or hinder it. New school models, such as academies, free schools and university technical colleges, have a greater freedom to develop and deliver a more varied curriculum which may require a different range of more specialised external spaces. A design’s long term resilience should also be tested at an early stage to ensure that it

The use of a simple palette of materials that are robust in use, easy to maintain and long-lasting is clearly important, although this needs to be balanced with a material quality that is inspiring and encourages a sense of enquiry. School grounds need to be rich and varied in their materials, providing a sensory experience that captures imagination. The material form of the school can provide a huge resource for curriculum development, from studying weathering patterns on different materials over time to scaling and trigonometry. At the same time, the quality of materials can help reinforce the identity and ethos

Examples of learning and social settings, including personalised and group work areas.

Choosing plants and materials that maximise these qualities gives the school a toolkit to develop a more inspiring curriculum and learning experience.

Conclusion

Varied choice of hard and soft materials that contribute to a learning environment that is civilised and civilising. Le Murier School, Guernsey (ArchitecturePLB/Plincke).

of the school in the same way that poor quality, degraded school grounds reduce respect and care. External furniture needs to provide a variety of seating arrangements and opportunities to dine outside and socialise in a civilised environment. Its design can offer a particular opportunity for student involvement or artist contribution, being both tangible and well used whilst not on the ‘critical path’ during construction. The choice of planting species also requires particular attention to detail, avoiding plants that are poisonous or increase allergies while offering

To maximise the benefits of outdoor environments a full suite of external spaces needs to be developed alongside the internal adjacency diagrams. Identifying a purpose for each different area, without being overly prescriptive, assists with the creation of a robust framework that the school can develop over the long term. A clear hierarchy needs to be planned, from public to secure outdoor spaces with a legible arrangement of entrance points and well-defined boundaries. By offering a variety of settings, the landscape of schools can both support social inclusion and self-confidence and enhance the learning experience of students of all abilities. The design framework, which allows for different teaching styles to develop and change over time, provides flexibility and adaptability that will ultimately contribute towards an increased sense of engagement, responsibility and ownership.

97 Thinking Outside the Box: Outdoor Environments

a rich source of curriculum material for a variety of subjects including science, art and technology. The selection of plants for their seasonal variety, growth and change characteristics, and for their sensory qualities is all too often neglected. Contact with nature and seasonal change can promote children’s mental and emotional health, while providing a calming environment and assisting with behaviour and the development of social responsibility.

98 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

5.1

CASE STUDY

PRIORY SCHOOL Upper Norwood, London

Architect:

Curl La Tourelle Architects

Landscape Architect:

Allen Scott

Client:

Croydon Council

Main Contractor:

Bouygues UK

Construction cost:

£11.6m

Completion:

2014

p The ‘skywalk’ with roof terraces in the background { Woodland focus for teaching t The woodland hub

T

his school was designed for 132 students with severe and complex difficulties aged 11-19 on a confined site in a residential suburb. The school’s commitment to a forest school approach was a key design driver supported by Croydon Council. The site was insufficient for the proposed number of students, but adjoined a wood designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. Croydon negotiated a land swap, bringing the site up to adequate size and offering an environment particularly suitable for the students’ educational, health and social needs. Curl La Tourelle Architects and the landscape architects, Allen Scott, worked closely from the start with the school’s senior management. Their vision attached high value to outdoor learning, including horticulture and creative arts. Visits were made to existing forest schools and natural parks in London, Sussex and Oxfordshire to check their suitability and operational requirements.

The design responds to its exceptional setting by wrapping a J-shaped building of up to three storeys around outdoor classrooms, games and leisure space with hard and impactabsorbent surfaces. Play, dining and ‘kickabout’ terraces at first floor and roof level are protected with fine mesh to allow students to use them safely, and reinforce the sense of an amphitheatre. The bus drop-off area is fenced and gated, and doubles as a bike-riding area. A creative hub sits on the edge of the wood, and a ‘sky walk’ bridge provides direct access from the first floor through the tree canopy into its heart. Here, bark paths meander between secluded working areas, separated from each other and from the wood beyond by discreet woven wood fences. The importance of the woodland is as a natural extension of a rich range of learning environments, not simply as a lovely backdrop to indoor and outdoor views.

100 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

5.2

CASE STUDY

DARWEN VALE HIGH SCHOOL Darwen, Lancashire

Architect:

John McAslan Partnership

Landscape Architect:

Plincke

Client:

Blackburn with Darwen Local Educational Partnership

Main Contractor:

Balfour Beatty Construction Services

Construction cost:

£23m

Completion:

2013

q The site plan embeds a wide variety of outdoor social and learning settings within the school grounds.

T

he redevelopment of the existing school was completed under the BSF Programme and officially reopened in July 2013 as a 1,200 place secondary high school. The retention of the 1930s grammar school building has been combined with a threestorey 8,000m 2 new-build addition. The imposing facade of the retained building has been emphasised in the paving pattern and dominates the

approach to the main entrance. An open threshold with bespoke seating walls creates a connection between the school and community. The fluid form of the new-build addition wraps around the retained building to form a dynamic learning environment. At the time of development the local education authority was a champion of cross-curricular and group-based learning so the new school is divided into four learning environments: STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths), Create (art, music and PE), Communicate (English, languages, history, geography and RE) and Transition (an area for year 7 students). The buildings and landscape are designed to flow between these different zones to encourage collaboration between disciplines. Teaching areas are interlinked through communal spaces that encourage peer-led learning and a more flexible school where zones can expand depending upon future needs.

The landscape design was developed in close cooperation with the staff and students to maximise external opportunities that support the four learning environments. For example a STEM trail and garden provide curriculum-rich outdoor areas for individual and group based projects. An outdoor amphitheatre, large enough to accommodate a whole year group for outdoor performance and presentation, incorporates inscribed text in its steps. Other external learning opportunities include an arts terrace, horticultural area with greenhouses and an observatory. Seasonal use has been extended with the incorporation of artist-designed canopies over seating areas. Community access is promoted to many parts of the school including a programme of adult learning, sports and fitness. The sports hall, all weather pitch, and hard courts are used by various community and sporting groups.

pp The school frontage is open to the wider community and acts as a welcoming gathering space.

p The amphitheatre provides a central focal point for socialising and outdoor performance.

102 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

5.3

CASE STUDY

HAPPYHANSEL PRIMARY SCHOOL Walls, Shetland

Landscape Architect:

Grounds for Learning (Learning through Landscapes)

Client:

Scottish Government and Shetland Islands Council

Main Contractor:

Tulloch Developments

Construction cost:

£16,500

Completion:

2014

q Removing walls improves circulation around the playground. Tunnel and sandpit provides opportunity for different activities and pupil interactions.

u Existing slope and redundant access path. Walls divide up the playground restricting movement.

G

rounds for Learning was asked by the Scottish Government to enhance the play and learning opportunities at Happyhansel Primary School, while embracing the local culture, environment and site constraints, all on a tight budget. The main principles in developing the design were a wish to:

pp Tunnel combined with loose materials results in imaginative opportunities for play and learning. p Redundant access path and existing block walls.

>

Encourage physical activity and provide features that stimulate a range of physical activities.

>

Develop physical skills, encourage a range of basic movement skills including climbing, jumping and balancing.

>

Boost creative thinking – a concept that linked to a local legend of the Trows (Shetland Trolls) combined with nonprescriptive resources to encourage problem solving and creativity.

>

Improve behaviour and social skills, provide a space where the pupils would work and play together in a collaborative way.

>

Provide for teacher-free learning to capture the imagination of pupils and allow them to lead and develop play opportunities.

>

>

Make use of local resources, materials and skills in order to maximise the budget and reduce transportation costs to this remote location. Allow use of the grounds throughout the year, no matter how challenging the weather.

>

Support the authority and school community in providing risk benefit assessments, maintenance plans and additional training to develop positive solutions to concerns.

Key lessons include: >

Make the most of the existing site. Simply removing a number of walls and small sections of fence improved the circulation around the playground and provided access to areas that were previously unused or out of bounds. This included a small area of woodland, which is particularly scarce in the Shetland environment.

>

Don’t be constrained by the school boundary. Get to know neighbours and areas nearby to establish what opportunities these might provide.

>

Every setting is unique with its own specific requirements (environmental and cultural). The success of this type of project relies on the confidence and ability of the school community to embrace the development.

>

Keep the external space fresh and exciting using flexible ‘loose materials’ and appropriate outdoor storage. In this case a robust timber store with internal shelving was provided as part of the capital works.

>

School grounds should never be considered complete! They are an environment that should continually evolve and adapt along with the pupils.

‘For the Architect, the challenges of working with existing school buildings can be especially enjoyable, requiring project-specific solutions, design flair and individual creativity to liberate and enhance their inherent value’

6

EXISTING BUILDINGS REFURBISHMENT, REMODELLING & EXTENSION Nick Mirchandani

Goose Green Primary School, Southwark (Cazenove Architects). A bright new atrium and reception area provide a welcoming and accessible entrance for the whole school with previously hidden administrative functions now open and visible. The new entrance structure creates a focus on the original brick and terracotta craftsmanship, contrasting the timber and glazing of the extension with the warm solid masonry of the Victorian building.

W

hile new schools understandably receive more press coverage, capital expenditure on existing schools far exceeds that spent on entirely new developments. Even at the height of investment under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, the presumption was that only 50% of expenditure was to be on new buildings, with 35% on ‘heavy’ refurbishment and 15% ‘light’ refurbishment. Bearing in mind the higher construction costs of new buildings it is clear that even BSF was intended to deliver many more refurbishment and remodelling projects than high-profile new schools. In austerity and post-austerity Britain, the emphasis on works to existing buildings is even greater. While investment continues, albeit at a reduced scale, the presumption today is towards maximising the potential and value of the existing estate. With pressure on school places in many parts of the country there is also a need for expansion of existing schools to meet increasing demand. This has been particularly true since the Academies Act 2010, as local authorities are generally no longer able to establish new schools themselves and must therefore expand existing schools to increase places. In recent years such expansion has been most prevalent in the primary age group, but the growth in student numbers is now naturally moving through into secondary schools. For these reasons it is appropriate and important to identify and celebrate successful refurbishments and extensions, as well as new-build schemes. Irrespective of future funding decisions they are likely to remain as the majority of schools projects and require a particularly flexible and creative approach both in briefing and design.

107 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

Introduction

108 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Redevelopment versus refurbishment The benefits of wholesale redevelopment are self-evident, providing modern, purpose-built accommodation suitable to the needs of 21st century education. In contrast, existing buildings may be in poor condition or built to very different standards than those now required, both educationally and technically. Educationally, pedagogical styles and practices are constantly changing, and with them the type and size of space required. The UK’s school estate however, dates back well over a hundred years and includes thousands of buildings from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. These were typically designed to accommodate static teaching, with children learning by rote and in serried ranks. Even schools from the 1960s and 1970s are often undersized and inflexible compared to modern standards, or simply unsuitable for contemporary practices such as widespread use of ICT. Outside the classroom, older schools often lack facilities for supporting class-based learning including resource areas, group rooms or private study spaces. Certain school layouts, particularly campus arrangements (as described in Chapter 3) may also create ‘silos’ within the school and limit opportunities for crosscurricular activities. Technically, existing school buildings vary widely in their performance. Victorian and Edwardian classrooms typically have high ceilings, excellent daylight and good natural ventilation, although their load-bearing masonry walls can be very restrictive and expensive to modify. In contrast, the framed, system-build schools of the 1960s and 1970s are typically flexible and easy to remodel. However,

their lower ceilings and lightweight construction mean they frequently suffer from poor ventilation, bad acoustics and inadequate insulation, being cold in winter and overheating in summer. Poor environmental performance is also exacerbated by activities for which the buildings were not originally designed, such as the extensive use of ICT with its associated heat output. Although refurbishment can offer remedies to many such deficiencies, there may nevertheless be disadvantages or limitations to such an approach. One of the most critical is the disruption involved in works to occupied buildings. Phasing or the use of temporary accommodation may make refurbishment possible, but both will incur costs and may protract disruption, particularly if multiple moves are required. Remodelling may also be limited by listing or other protective designations. However, if existing buildings can be brought up to modern standards cost-effectively, then retention and refurbishment is by definition a more sustainable approach than wholesale replacement. It may also offer other benefits:

} Current funding is based on gross internal areas that may be less generous than existing buildings. In this instance, a refurbished school with extra space may be preferable to a smaller new school even though the latter would be purpose designed to current needs. The additional space may provide sufficient flexibility to overcome other deficiencies. } If the construction budget is already defined, then it may go further if an acceptable and efficient refurbishment option can be identified. If so, the same budget may be able to deliver more

Walthamstow School for Girls, Waltham Forest (ArchitecturePLB). This project involved the refurbishment and extension of an existing Grade II listed Edwardian school to provide new facilities and to improve circulation and accessibility across a constrained and sloping site. At the interface with the existing building a new drama studio doubles up as a fully serviced stage for the historic assembly hall.

109 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

Hayes Primary School, Croydon (Hayhurst and Co). This expansion provides an exciting and vibrant new extension to a tired and outdated school building. New accommodation, incorporating a 54 metre long, mirror-finish stainless steel screen, wraps around the front and side of the school to shield the existing fabric and provide a cohesive visual treatment from the road.

110 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

space or a better standard of finish or fit-out than the new-build alternative. } The inherent value of existing buildings is not always quantifiable. Just as a poor reputation or history of underachievement sometimes favours comprehensive redevelopment, successful schools may prefer to retain well-loved buildings, even if they are no longer entirely fit for purpose. They are part of the school’s individual identity and character and their loss may be detrimental in itself. They may also have wider heritage or cultural significance within the neighbourhood. Listed buildings in particular may offer qualities that could never be replicated. The listing may impose restrictions but there are many extremely creative examples of their refurbishment for contemporary needs. i Not surprisingly, existing school buildings tend to be constructed in the most appropriate position on the site. If temporary accommodation or phasing is to be avoided, to minimise both costs and disruption, then replacement buildings will need to be in a less favourable location. This may be marginal and of little consequence; on the other hand the drawbacks may be significant and lead to a preference for retention and adaptation. } Where funding is limited or only available over a longer period, refurbishment and extension is more likely to be deliverable than wholesale replacement. In such cases, a comprehensive masterplan and phasing strategy are essential to ensure funds are spent effectively over the long term. } When working with existing buildings it is often easier for a school to test out alternative solutions (both physical and educational) in a small area before embarking on wider scale changes.

For these reasons, refurbishment, remodelling and extension should not be considered as a necessarily inferior alternative to redevelopment. Although the limitations imposed by existing buildings may require compromises or derogations against modern performance standards, refurbishment can also deliver positive benefits. Redevelopment may also have its own drawbacks. Evaluation and comparison of alternative options therefore needs to be carried out very carefully and against the widest possible criteria.

Establishing needs Evaluation of possible needs typically starts with an assessment of the sufficiency, suitability and condition of the existing estate. The specific scope may vary from project to project but all three elements are essential to provide a balanced appraisal and to ensure that investment is focused on delivering best value.

} Sufficiency of accommodation addresses the number of spaces required, teaching and non-teaching, their size and capacity to accommodate student and staff numbers. While guidance for a particular size of school is available in Building Bulletin 103, it is necessarily generic and based on new-build provision. The number and size of spaces will vary from school to school according to teaching preferences and practice, and in the case of existing schools, the spaces available. Wherever possible, sufficiency assessments should therefore be carried out on the basis of preferred group sizes and an idealised timetable.

} Like sufficiency, suitability relates to teaching practice and how the room will or can be used. An assessment is therefore best if specific to an individual school. Furthermore, resolution of a particular deficiency may not require a construction solution at all, but instead a change in the way the school operates and delivers. For example, a particular room may be unsuitable for its current use but perfectly adequate for other functions. } Condition is perhaps the most straightforward of assessments. Nevertheless, investment decisions are not always clear. Some repair or refurbishment requirements may be absolute

while others will deliver benefits that need to be evaluated against the costs involved and the likely lifespan of the building. If the latter is limited then significant investment is unlikely to deliver value in the long term.

Together these three different kinds of assessment provide the project team with a comprehensive understanding of the existing buildings, what works and what doesn’t, both from an educational and a technical viewpoint. Only on such a basis can effective and informed brief development and options appraisal occur.

Hilden Grange Preparatory School, Tonbridge (Hawkins|Brown). The new building is designed to exploit the steeply sloping site, providing two wings of teaching accommodation and a new hall, all set within a conservation area and in the shadow of the school’s main Victorian building. The slope of the site allows the roof of the hall to be used as a terrace and allows long views across the Weald of Kent.

111 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

} Suitability of spaces addresses a wide range of issues, including room size, accessibility, proportion, orientation, environmental performance and services provision. It may also relate to site-wide issues such as location within the school, access for deliveries and/or community use and proximity to other facilities, both internal and external.

112 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

A creative approach to

Information gathering

briefing and design While all projects are likely to benefit from the involvement of design professionals at the early briefing stages, this is particularly true when adapting existing buildings. In developing new schools, the client is likely to have a reasonable understanding of what is possible, at least sufficient to establish outline requirements, informed by their own expertise and the recommendations of Building Bulletins and other guidance. In new-build projects, the design team is therefore typically required to respond to a previouslydeveloped brief, albeit one that may be revised or refined as part of the iterative design process.

With pros and cons to both refurbishment and redevelopment, it is imperative that all decisions, from feasibility stage onwards, are carried out on the basis of the best possible understanding of the existing buildings and site. Detailed surveys are therefore essential if the costs associated with different options are to be accurately evaluated. At the early stages however, there is a natural disinclination to commission surveys that may prove unnecessary in the long run, either because the project fails to progress or because a particular building ends up being demolished rather than refurbished. Intrusive surveys may also be unacceptably disruptive in the context of an occupied school.

When working with existing structures however, the possibilities are likely to be less clear at the outset as well as more restricted. In such cases, the early involvement of expert designers is particularly valuable. Not only can an architect offer a technical appraisal of existing buildings and their potential, one with knowledge of the sector may be able to suggest alternative educational solutions based on their experience of working with other schools. In such cases the architect is crucial in assisting the client to formulate the brief as well as the design solution.

Deciding which surveys should be commissioned and when requires a judgment call based on the experience and expertise of the team. In general it is probably best to risk too many surveys rather than too few. Some however may be carried out only at a high level in order to establish whether more detailed and/or intrusive investigations are required, either immediately or at a later stage in the process.

Identifying existing problems, both educational and technical, therefore provides the starting point and requires the expertise of both the educationalist client and their technical advisers. Working together, they can then develop alternative design solutions and assess their educational implications in terms of delivering the curriculum, timetabling and staffing requirements.

Site-wide surveys and investigations (also required for a new school):

Typical requirements include:

} Title, boundaries, easements etc. } Planning status and history. } Arboriculture.

} Flood risk. } Archaeology. } Ground/Soil investigation. } Contamination.

Spending time on site with end users will always pay dividends in improving the design team’s understanding of a building, its performance, limitations and potential. The wealth of knowledge available from teaching staff, students and site managers is an extremely valuable resource and one that should not be ignored, even when it is anecdotal and needs interpretation by construction professionals.

} Utilities searches/surveys. } Drainage.

Cost effectiveness and value

} Topographical survey. } Site acoustics.

When working with existing structures, the relationship between cost and value is even more complex than when designing new schools.

} Traffic and highways.

Costs Building surveys and investigations (specific to existing buildings): } Heritage assessment – listings, conservation area status etc. } Condition. } Structural. } Building acoustics. } Asbestos. } Measured building survey. While many or all of these surveys may be needed at some stage in the process, the most important information-gathering exercise can be carried out by the architect at the start of the project.

Detailed and accurate costs are unlikely to be available at the early design stages when the implications of existing structures are yet to be established. While new-build costs can be relatively easily benchmarked against similar recent projects, relevant precedents for adaptation will be rarer and harder to identify. The range of options is also likely to be broader when working with an existing estate than when designing a new school. Each building or building element might be retained in its current state, refurbished, remodelled, extended or replaced; it may maintain its existing function or change its use as part of a wider reorganisation of the school. In the case of existing buildings, the client therefore needs to understand not only what is technically possible but also the order of costs associated with different solutions, including the costs of temporary works or phased construction if required.

113 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

} Ecology/Habitat.

114 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

St Marylebone School, Westminster (Gumuchdjian Architects). Located on an extremely tight urban site, the school required new facilities including art and music accommodation plus dance/drama studios and a gymnasium. The latter are located entirely below ground, maximising the potential of the site and allowing the roof to be used as a new outdoor play space.

St Benedict’s School, Ealing (Henley Halebrown Rorrison). The scheme, like Russian dolls, incorporates an examination hall within an assembly hall, along with a new Chapel, a Music School, Modern Languages department, visitor and pupil entrances. The cloister reflects the school’s Benedictine culture and offers barrier-free access to much of the existing school estate.

at the start, it will be impossible to evaluate and compare alternative design solutions that, in the case of existing schools, may be widely divergent.

The advice of cost consultants, engineers and other designers with experience of working with existing buildings is therefore essential at the early stages of the project. Their expertise will allow alternative strategies to be scoped and costassessed for an effective comparison.

in defining goals and

Value The notion of value is almost always nebulous. While it is easy to agree the need for best-value design solutions, it is harder to define what this means. Investment in existing school buildings will, almost inevitably, deliver improvements. Greater investment may deliver incremental improvements but at what point they stop delivering value is for the team to assess. To evaluate value in the context of a particular project it is necessary to understand the values of the client. In the case of schools, there are multiple such clients – funders, governors, managers, teachers, students, parents and the wider community. Not only may their values be hard to identify or define, with such a wide group of stakeholders there will inevitably be differences in concerns and opinions. It is therefore essential to come to some shared understanding of the outcomes sought of each particular project, incorporating a wide range of different perspectives including the educational, pastoral and social. Without such an understanding

The role of the architect delivering value Briefing While defining the goals of a particular project is the responsibility of stakeholders, the architect has an important role in assisting the process. As an external adviser during brief development, the architect can help by taking an objective view, balancing potentially conflicting requirements and recording agreed objectives in the form of a written brief or statement of desired outcomes. If preferred, he or she may also be able to facilitate the process using industry-standard systems such as the Design Quality Indicators for Schools. ii

Design stages The evaluation and comparison of alternative design solutions is the function of clients and designers working together. As the design develops into detail however, it is typically the architect’s role to represent the client’s interests in making decisions regarding effective expenditure. As ‘guardian’ of the brief he or she must ensure that other members of the design team understand the client’s vision and that all aspects of the design, including decisions relating to where and where not to spend money, are focused accordingly. In this way, the architect

115 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

The relationship between capital and revenue costs may also be less clear-cut than when designing new buildings. If the environmental performance of an existing building is to be upgraded, there is a balance to be struck between additional short-term capital costs and long-term revenue savings.

116 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

is responsible for ensuring that design and construction solutions deliver value by meeting the goals defined at the outset by the client.

Achieving the best return on investment or ‘more for less’ Whether working in the state or independent sectors, there is a natural requirement for designers to deliver the best possible outcomes from investment, either by achieving more or spending less. Evaluation of return can be complex, particularly in the case of refurbishment and remodelling. If the maximum benefit is to be achieved then it is self-evidently necessary to avoid ineffective expenditure. When adapting existing buildings however, it is not uncommon for costs to be incurred as a result of inadequate information at the critical decision-making stages. With an experienced team, good communications and mutual understanding, it is equally possible to ensure that all investment is directed towards project goals through a combination of intelligent briefing and design.

Change the brief, not the building As has been described previously, an understanding of the technical implications and the construction costs associated with different design solutions is essential if they are to be compared effectively. Any intervention that affects structure, building services or environmental systems comes with a price tag. Best value therefore tends to be delivered by solutions that minimise such intervention, working with rather than against the grain of the building and its

inherent design logic. In turn this may require a more flexible approach to briefing than is necessary when designing new schools. The architect therefore needs to understand the building’s performance as a learning environment as well as in a technical sense. By spending time with building users in order to understand those things that a building does well, as well as its failings, it is possible to minimise costly interventions and hence maximise value. For example, Building Bulletin 103 suggests an area of 55m2 for a 30-pupil general classroom and 62m2 for an infant or ICT-rich classroom. However, many existing school buildings have classrooms well below these areas, often as low as 45m2. In some cases, such as the system-build schools of the 1960s and 1970s, it may be simple enough to relocate internal partitions to increase room sizes. The buildings were designed with such flexibility in mind and enlargement can be achieved relatively easily and cost effectively. In contrast, Victorian and Edwardian buildings tend to have load-bearing internal walls and window arrangements specific to the original plan form. Enlarging these classrooms to modern area standards may be cost prohibitive or even impossible. In such cases the solution is likely to be partially educational. By assessing the activities precluded by the smaller rooms, and by providing for these differently or elsewhere, it may be possible to address the deficiency without meeting the standard area requirements. At its most extreme, it may be that the 45m2 classrooms are considered perfectly functional, but for 24 pupils rather than 30. In this case, one option would be to leave the existing building alone but build additional classrooms and employ extra

117 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

JCB Academy (LHC Architecture) The reuse, conversion and development of a former Arkwright Cotton Mill into the UK’s first university technical college, focused on delivering high quality engineering and business education. The project involved sensitive restoration of the Grade II* listed structure, the addition of sympathetic but contemporary new buildings, landscaping and specialist facilities.

Goose Green Primary School, Southwark (Cazenove Architects). This phased remodelling and extension of a Grade II listed 1901 board school was designed to minimise disruption to the occupants while updating the existing accommodation, improving circulation and providing a new entrance, administration and catering facilities. The new wing is designed to complement and enhance the original building.

118 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

teaching staff. Such a solution may be difficult to achieve as it would involve different budgets and funding streams. Nevertheless it may be worth considering if it delivers better value than costly remodelling, particularly if the reduced group size also offers learning benefits.

Designing out temporary costs and disruption The costs of redevelopment are not restricted to construction alone. Other project costs, such as those associated with phasing, temporary accommodation or multiple decanting, can be significant. Unlike construction expenditure however, these costs deliver no long-term benefits in themselves. They may however be necessary, and valuable, in order to achieve a preferred scheme. It is therefore imperative when comparing alternative design solutions to consider the costs and disruption of implementation, even where these may be hard to quantify. If a design solution can be developed that minimises the need for complex phasing or temporary accommodation, then a greater percentage of the overall budget can be directed towards delivering long-term benefits. In contrast, the costs of implementation and the impact of disruption may mean that the best long-term design solution is not in fact the best value, or the preferred option. Disruption and temporary implementation costs may also vary according to the time of year. It is therefore important to consider the construction sequence and programme against the academic cycle. For example, delaying the start or changing the sequence of construction may deliver value if it reduces the detrimental impact or costs associated with mitigating disruption to exams.

Multi-purpose, multifunction, multi-user Modern school buildings are generally briefed and designed to maximise utilisation, allowing as many areas as possible to be used for as much of the day as possible. This is not necessarily the case for existing buildings where, for example, the dining hall may have been designed for use only at lunchtime. When working with existing school buildings, one of the best ways of maximising value is therefore to increase the use and functionality of existing spaces. For example it may be possible for a revamped dining hall to be used outside dining hours, as a student social space or for informal assembly or private study. Alternatively, a facility may retain its existing function but expand its user base. Opening up sports facilities to the community can generate extra revenue, as can allowing historic buildings to be used for functions such as wedding receptions.

Conclusion It is undoubtedly true that working with existing school buildings requires greater compromises than designing new ones. Not only can it be complex or impossible to bring existing structures up to modern standards, but technical, functional or cost restrictions may require difficult decisions. On the other hand, refurbishing existing buildings may offer possibilities and outcomes that a new school cannot. While new school buildings can, at least to some extent, be standardised, this is not the case when working with existing buildings, each of which has its own positive and negative

For the Architect, the challenges of working with existing school buildings can be especially enjoyable, requiring project-specific solutions, design flair and individual creativity to liberate and enhance their inherent value. The juxtaposition of new and old offers the chance to explore and enjoy contrasting forms, materials, colours and textures in a way that may be impossible in an entirely new building. The relationship between designers and educationalists can also be especially productive and rewarding when working with existing structures. Designing buildings is always a team effort but in the case of existing schools, effective and early collaboration between client and designers is particularly important. Each must respond to the expertise of the other in order to fulfill their own role in the process and together reach the most effective synergy between brief and design. This is both the challenge and the particular pleasure of working with existing school buildings.

References i

Refer, for example, ‘England’s Schools. History, Architecture and Adaptation’ (English Heritage, 2010). ii

The Design Quality Indicator (DQI) is a ‘toolkit’ developed by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) to measure, evaluate and improve the design quality of buildings. A school-specific version was launched in conjunction with CABE and the Department for Education and Skills in 2005 and became an integral part of the process for BSF projects. A CABE/DFES guide to the use of the DQI for schools can be found online.

119 Existing Buildings: Refurbishment, Remodelling & Extension

characteristics. Understanding and responding to these is essential if we are to unlock their potential. Successful schemes are those that bring out the best in the original structures, exploiting what works well while at the same time addressing those things that do not.

120 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

6.1

CASE STUDY

THE HENRIETTA BARNETT SCHOOL Hampstead Garden Suburb, London

Architect:

Hopkins Architects

Client:

The Henrietta Barnett School

Main Contractor:

Osborne

Construction cost:

£6.1m

Completion:

2010

t The Art and DT Building, with its upper loggia and colonnaded ground floor.

u The new Music and Drama Building, looking towards the historic Main Building. q First floor music room offering a flexible layout with high ceilings and generous daylight.

T

his project for the Henrietta Barnett School, in the heart of London’s Hampstead Garden Suburb, demonstrates how a bright, modern and connected school environment might be constructed in the most sensitive of historic sites. Founded in 1911, the school is a top-performing voluntary-aided state grammar school for girls, which had been trying to build new facilities, without success, since 1961. The proposals differed from previous schemes by suggesting a substantial refurbishment of the science department, reusing the laboratories from the original building (designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens), thereby minimising the amount of new-build accommodation required elsewhere. New buildings for music, art, drama and design technology were constructed immediately adjacent to the existing Lutyens building. Their architecture was carefully considered to sit well within this heritage site, while providing the most modern standards of education. An awareness and respect of context and history was vital to the success of this project, working within and adjacent to a Grade II* listed building and at the centre of a fiercely protected conservation area. This inspired the form, massing and materials of the new buildings which provide a new teaching environment that is uncompromisingly fit for purpose. They meet the national standards for classroom size, are naturally ventilated (while maintaining acoustic control), well day-lit and provided with adequate storage.

External covered arcades bring the students outside as they circulate between classes, providing social spaces in which to gather and long views across the school site. In the wider context, the site landscaping strategy unlocked the circulation between the other existing buildings and provided a new central heart to the school site. The project was phased so that no temporary accommodation was required nor interruption to the academic cycle. Phase one saw the renovation of the science department, phase two the construction of the new buildings, and phase three the landscaping. This meant that decant (which can easily drain the budget of projects in existing school buildings) could be carefully managed within the school’s existing fabric.

122 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

6.2

u New courtyard framed between the original building and the new wings providing specialist accommodation.

CASE STUDY

ELM COURT SCHOOL Lambeth, London

Architect:

jmarchitects

Client:

London Borough of Lambeth

Main Contractor:

Apollo Construction

Construction cost:

£8.5m

Completion:

2009

x Landscape amphitheatre resolving the change in level across the site.

E

lm Court School caters for up to 100, 11-16 age students with additional support needs (ASN). Formerly occupying a site with more than 50% temporary buildings, the school had developed over the years to provide extra specialist and general learning environments. Full conversion and a new-build extension was proposed in order to cater for the future needs of its pupils. While the Edwardian building was preserved externally – being situated within a conservation area – there was freedom to transform the internal organisation of spaces, providing environments that would complement the needs of a 21st century school. The remodelled building brings in daylight, fresh air and a clearer visible circulation strategy. These improvements help create a place where more environmentally sensitive children can learn and staff can manage the school day with minimal stress. Teaching takes place within a classroom based system, which is

necessary to keep teaching groups small (eight pupils) and to minimise disruption and distraction. The classrooms are supplemented by small group rooms for ‘time-out space’, one-to-one work or staff meetings. The buildings have been designed to allow direct access to outdoor space from both the lower and upper ground levels, and enable lift access to the upper level from within the building so that the entire site is accessible to all.

Key issues included: >

Adapting an Edwardian property to meet BSF standards presented the design and construction teams with a series of challenges, as well as an opportunity to create something innovative and bold.

>

Combining new with old (while retaining original features such as the war memorial panels in the hall) meant that some teaching spaces could be larger than would be provided for under a new-build scheme.

>

Extremely limited access for construction, only made possible by active engagement with the local community.

‘The new school demonstrates what is possible in creating a modern, well-equipped learning environment from an historic building.’ English Heritage

x View from the rear showing the relationship between new and old.

124 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

6.3

CASE STUDY

HILLVIEW SCHOOL FOR GIRLS Tonbridge, Kent

Architect:

Scott Brownrigg

Client:

Hillview School for Girls

Main Contractor:

Galliford Try

Construction cost:

£1.2m

Completion:

2013

t External view of the new teaching block from the south-west. p Flexible superlab located on the first floor facilitates a large range of pedagogical approaches. { The first floor accommodation is open to the underside of the pitched roof.

H

illview School for Girls in Tonbridge, Kent was the first scheme to be delivered using Galliford Try’s and Scott Brownrigg’s design and construction concept Optimum Schools. The concept was developed to meet the challenge of building ‘cost-effective, great schools at pace’ set by the EFA and James Review of Education Capital 2011. It seeks to reduce the benchmark cost and construction programme of school buildings by 30% without compromising design integrity or build quality. The concept resulted from a twoyear research and development programme with an integrated team of headteachers, architects, engineers and consultants. It employs a rigorous set of design and construction principles, componentbased standardisation (a ‘kit of parts’) and a fully-integrated design and supply chain. The model’s efficiencies in design simplicity and standardisation can be applied on a variety of schemes, from a classroom extension to a whole new school. Designed as a series of pavilions, the approach provides flexibility and adaptability, allowing

a school to grow gradually and be extended easily by adding extra pavilions. The model is responsive to different sites, planning constraints and the specific requirements and pedagogical approaches of each individual school. Hillview School for Girls is a twostorey, 950m2 science and business studies block. Built in just 21 weeks, the overall cost was £1.2m – approximately £1,350/m2. Key benefits of the approach include: >

Utilisation of the best available technologies and efficiencies in modern methods of construction.

>

Standardisation of key components, allowing off-site manufacturing, intelligent design and supply chain integration.

>

Significant savings in cost and time over traditional construction methods, while also enabling school buildings to be bespoke and tailored to individual sites and school-specific user requirements.

‘It is important to give clients learning environments that feel highly creative and accessible, and that deliver great value and flexibility. FFE can contribute significantly to how a new school looks, feels and is used’

7

INTERIOR DESIGN ENHANCING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Wayne Taylor

Ashperton Primary Academy, Herefordshire (Warren Benbow Architects.) Dedicated reading alcoves create pupil-friendly zones within the larger open-plan library corridor area and also provide space for one-to-one and small group work. The reading alcoves were a reaction to seeing pupils sat on chairs in corridors for oneto-one learning support. It looked like they were being punished rather than helped.

F

ollowing the demise of the Building Schools for the Future programme, and the removal and replacement of several other national educational frameworks, design teams have experienced major changes in how schools are procured and delivered. New budgets, timescales and engagement processes have significantly affected the role of every discipline involved in designing and raising an educational building. Reduced funding has increased the importance of fittings, furniture and equipment (FFE) within each project. Previously, FFE design and selection was a discipline that fell under the radar, seemingly having much less influence on the final design. Now we see a greater reliance on interior design and carefully chosen equipment to make more of a visual statement than ever before, particularly where existing buildings are being remodelled or refurbished. It is important to give clients learning environments that feel highly creative and accessible, and that deliver great value and flexibility. FFE can contribute significantly to how a new school looks, feels and is used. In order for new learning spaces to be functional they must also be flexible, versatile, adaptable and agile. It is important that the FFE in every space, whether a classroom or a social space, delivers for staff and students while integrating and coordinating with the building. Exciting, design-led and technically delivered spaces should disrupt the status quo and offer learners new and innovative ways to use and improve their working environments.

129 Interior Design: Enhancing the Learning Environment

Introduction

130 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

Getting started FFE is no longer just about designing interiors and specifying furniture, it is about creating learning environments that work for now and for the future. Education is an ever-changing landscape and that brings its own challenges in how we design spaces that are flexible enough for the long term. Good interior design can be a quick and effective way of helping users to manage new situations, for example when relocating, downsizing or expanding, or when they need to adapt or change how a space is used. The design team for any school project should be friendly, straight talking and approachable, able to demystify the process and provide jargonfree communications. Even where budgets are challenging, it is important to provide genuine

choice as this creates greater user experiences, builds ownership and allows clients to express themselves and their preferences. All new projects should include a comprehensive initiation process and a close working relationship between the FFE specialists, the educationalist and other design team members. Early meetings and workshops with the nominated architects and other design team members, including facilities management colleagues, are imperative. They are the ones who will focus on FFE longevity and life cycle cost, and will wish to avoid a situation which results in ‘buy cheap, buy twice’. Fully exploring the client brief and the programme of deliverables at this stage will create buy-in to the FFE project deadlines and key milestones, and develop a solid understanding of how they coincide with the build programme.

Sheffield UTC. Hand sketch, multi-use space (Spacezero/ Balfour Beatty).

at the right time There is a good deal of information available at the start of any design project. This may include a facilities output specification, specialist equipment lists, area data sheets, a schedule of accommodation and school specific design brief. As well as the technical specifications it is important that the FFE consultant understands the style of teaching and learning the school wants to deliver. Early access to the client team will inform how they design the spaces, maximising the use of available space and getting the best from the budget. As projects are now required to be delivered in condensed timescales and to more prescriptive specifications, they require designers to interpret many documents and to be able to track changes to the requirements of the bidder’s proposals. This means the design team has to manage vast amounts of information and there is a danger that something important will be missed. The development of electronic databases as a platform where information can be shared and managed has been a positive asset to the design team, including the FFE consultants. Software such as Activeplan can be used to develop a Schedule of Accommodation and supporting Area Data Sheets. This includes the FFE from first principles, or can be used to import the data from a fully coordinated model against which the design is developed and managed. It makes the checking process and compiling of project information faster and more efficient, and creates and manages versions of both client’s requirements and contractor’s proposals. This has the advantage of ensuring that the information required at the building handover

stage is created at the beginning of the project. It also compiles a database that school Facilities Managers will inherit at the end of the project.

Being creative – despite the budget Large procurement frameworks tend to encourage the development of a consistent palette of products where quality and cost are tested and can be used across a number of similar projects. However, it is still possible to deliver creativity by providing a range of base products that also have the flexibility to be customised for individual schools. With clever specification even the smallest budget can be used wisely resulting in aesthetically pleasing school spaces. At St Ambrose College, for example, Spacezero designed the ‘rock and pebble’ desking solution. There were no commercially available, affordable solutions that fully met the school’s requirements for teaching in a range of group sizes. The design featured the smaller satellite ‘pebble’ tables docking with the larger central ‘rock’ table, allowing the tables to tessellate and form a variety of configurations for small or large group and individual work. St Ambrose College also required a teaching lectern – a multifunctional teacher base that could be fully integrated with technology and allow for different presentation styles. Nothing matched the school’s specific requirements so a bespoke solution was designed resulting in an ergonomic, serviceable and robust product that could be colour-matched to the school’s pastoral houses.

131 Interior Design: Enhancing the Learning Environment

The right information

132 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

St Ambrose College, Altrincham. ‘Pebble’ and ‘Rock’ Clusters (Spacezero/Balfour Beatty).

St Ambrose College, Altrincham. ‘Pebble’ tables (Spacezero/ Sheppard Robson/ Balfour Beatty).

Using furniture to create separation between spaces can also be a more affordable and flexible solution than building in movable walls or partitions. Spacezero have created feature tables with tall slab ends that replace two legs, extending past the table top to form a high screen. Other solutions include simply using an extended upholstered seating backrest to create a low height ‘wall’. A more complex example of this is the ‘spine wall’ at Witton Park School that was used to control circulation within a large atrium space. At the same time it was a functioning part of the library, incorporating pod-style seating, display, power and data points. At the present time very few project budgets allow for the specification of statement or bespoke school furniture. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing – get it wrong and it can be an expensive mistake. However, where a required solution is not readily available as an affordable off-the-shelf product, it is still worth exploring whether the FFE consultant can find a creative solution.

to learning The current focus on robust and functional FFE that provides value for money does not mean a sense of aesthetics should be lost. Even with smaller budgets there are many ways to make the environment more appealing. Materiality is often the cure for an institutional environment, promoting creative learning by surrounding the learners with a thought-provoking backdrop. Walls, floors and ceilings are all wonderful opportunities to apply different textures, colours and graphics. Vertical and horizontal surfaces can provide a canvas for exploration, innovation and visual learning to take place without necessarily

incurring great expense. The challenge is convincing the school to be brave enough to invest the budget and embrace what is not the norm. Gateacre School’s Olive Cafe, a focal point within their large atrium space, has a banquette seating unit that houses a live olive tree. The vertical and horizontal surfaces in the space are completely covered in artificial turf to reinforce the concept of bringing the outdoors in, and introduce colour and texture to an otherwise visually neutral palette. This has proven to be a successful space for student gatherings and collaborations and is a social area they enjoy using. In addition to the more familiar use of colour to create feature-walls or the application of typographic solutions to signpost faculties or departments, different sorts of images can be

Library, Rimon Jewish Primary School, Barnet. (Spacezero).

133 Interior Design: Enhancing the Learning Environment

FFE as a backdrop

134 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

used to create interest. For example, large images of iconic local landmarks or landscapes can be applied to standard units and roller racking systems in learning resource centres, giving the illusion of internal vistas.

Bringing the space to life For clients who may struggle to visualise what a new space might look like, the FFE consultant will have a number of tools that can support them. For example, if the school wants a storage wall but this is proving too expensive, arranging the loose FFE to demonstrate a storage wall and then visualising the proposal in a 3D drawing can help them to see how it would work and whether it would meet their needs. To really understand the functionality required for each learning space the FFE consultant will visualise how each area of the school will look and function. Using 1:50 engagement sheets, including 2D and 3D outputs with mood boards and supporting design rationale, this will make absolutely sure that the client understands the proposals and can comment on them in detail. This can be supported later in the process, when the design is agreed, with hand sketches, colour renders or even 3D panoramic visualisations. A consistent level of quality output throughout the design phase is imperative. It ensures the client not only understands what is being proposed but that the end result meets their expectations. Creating a project-specific product catalogue ensures the end users are happy with the proposed selection before delivery and installation.

In some instances creating a sample classroom environment can be very helpful. This involves repurposing a space in the existing school and providing a variety of new sample equipment for the stakeholders to touch and feel, approve and recommend. Using these spaces to deliver lessons also helps them to explore whether the proposed products are suitable. If this is not appropriate or possible, organising individual samples to be delivered to the school to review, or hosting visits to various manufacturers’ showrooms are helpful alternatives. The selection of furniture and equipment is a byproduct of good interior and FFE design. Knowing the school’s various teaching methods, styles and requirements (such as how much they use ICT) influences the design of the space and ultimately the selection of furniture. The end user is more often than not looking for inspiration as to how they can make their estate work harder for them, while giving them a great environment within which to work and learn. They often have high expectations for every element of the project. It is critical that they are willing to be open minded and are prepared to be challenged in their thinking. At the same time they should not being afraid to question the design team’s proposal in order to get the outcome they need.

Learning from the workplace Within a market that is only just starting to recover from a deep recession there are significant trends that are impacting on the workplace and resultant furniture specification. The UK is usually an early adopter of new ways of working and consequently a global workplace

trendsetter. Looking to what is happening in other environments, including workplaces and higher education settings, helps to further bridge the gap between learning and working environments. Creating key education spaces that mimic the world of commerce and academia will help to ease the transition as students move from school to further study or employment.

Living with legacy furniture Current funding can mean that schools are required to take their existing furniture and equipment to their new building. This use of ‘legacy’ furniture means there is not always the opportunity to introduce much new FFE immediately. Yet it is still important to help the school make the best of the situation. The school may find their furniture has been gradually replaced over time and this can give rise to a potential cacophony of mismatched furniture. This situation isn’t uncommon and certainly not

insurmountable. It is the test of good design to use existing FFE in the right places, and to advise the client on how to spend any future funding to get maximum effect. There is a huge misconception that legacy equipment is free and simply means that the schools can save the money that might be required for new purchases by repurposing existing FFE. This may well be true at a gross level, but there is now also a disproportionate amount of time being spent on analysing legacy equipment reports, undertaking new condition surveys, and integrating the data captured into the design model to allow accurate costing. Reports are provided by the schools and the technical adviser on most projects but, unfortunately, there can be a lack of consistency in the quality and format of the data produced. To adequately manage the potential risks of using legacy FFE, the contractors and consultants must undertake their own reports or, as a minimum, apply a contingency to the FFE budget to cover legacy equipment that may not survive to journey.

135 Interior Design: Enhancing the Learning Environment

Commonweal Sixth Form, Swindon (Spacezero/McAvoy Group).

136 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

It is therefore very important to agree a legacy strategy early in the project to avoid confusion and focus minds on where to allocate the available budget for new equipment. Emerging technology is a powerful ally to the accurate and efficient data capture, and the use of a powerful ‘app builder’ allows consultants to design their own field data collection survey software, which runs on iPads. This allows a school-wide, room-by-room, product-by-product condition survey to take place, assigning a location, a unique product code, photograph, dimensions, description and status to every item ready for integration into the preferred design. This level of detail and accuracy gives comfort that the legacy equipment has been fully understood and, where it is to be moved over, how it will be accommodated in the new design. Spine wall, Witton Park Academy, Blackburn (Spacezero/ Studio E Architects/Balfour Beatty).

Using technology – why BIM? Building Information Management (BIM) is an industry term used by many, understood by few and used effectively by even less. There is a great deal of talk about BIM in the building industry at present. But what is it? BIM is a multitude of things – a coordinated set of processes, supported by technology, that add value through creating, managing and sharing the properties of an asset throughout its life cycle. It provides accurate and detailed information and enables earlier decision making. It also creates a collaborative, proactive working environment for the design team. BIM provides an accelerated and improved workflow, enables better and more accurate integration and coordination of the building, ICT, FFE and services. As a by-product it helps provide photorealistic visuals and this speeds up the approval process by providing a better visual explanation for clients of what they are getting from the project. If BIM is used to its potential it can provide a true representation of the proposed FFE products, embedded with detailed manufacturer and product information. Adopting BIM has created a whole new world of opportunity for the FFE consultant to work more closely with architects and design team consultants, providing a better understanding of the structure, services and how we collectively integrate furniture and equipment into the building. In some instances by combining FFE with ICT, small power and data, plus other elements of services and structure, the loaded plans can be used as the lead document for engagement, creating a slicker, faster more powerful and accurate process.

FFE must be considered at the beginning of the design process and should sit at the top table with the architects and other design team members, as opposed to an afterthought or a bill of quantities at the back end of the construction phase. A lack of a coordinated approach will only result in badly integrated buildings with many errors during installation and, at that stage of the process, the polar opposite of a soft landing.

Educating the end client in understanding the benefit and necessity of timely decision making, and its impact on manufacturing and the delivery process, is important. Embracing BIM, recognising its ability to assist in providing accurate and reliable data, helps speed up the sign-off process. Leaving decisions and sign-off until the last minute causes chronic spikes in manufacture, which ultimately impact installation. This snowball effect can be curtailed by signing off months in advance. Getting the right people involved at the right time can make the process much more seamless and far less problematic.

Spaces need to be designed to be functional, comfortable and conducive to learning – much more than just providing ‘adequate’ FFE. We need to consider how colour, texture and graphics affect the learning environment and the learner. Unfortunately, in some projects, the FFE budget is ‘low hanging fruit’ when there is a need to fill a hole in the budget elsewhere. Ring-fencing money for FFE at the start of the process will ensure there is sufficient budget to deliver what the client needs at the end.

Using FFE budgets well, no matter how big or small they are and no matter whether you are revamping an existing school or building new, can energise spaces and make staff and students feel more positive about their environment. Having the right equipment, ensuring teaching spaces have maximum flexibility, and creating comfortable social areas, can directly support the school’s ethos and vision and give a strong sense of identity and community. This is an area where a relatively small investment really can make a huge difference.

St Ambrose College, Altrincham. (Spacezero/Sheppard Robson/ Balfour Beatty).

137 Interior Design: Enhancing the Learning Environment

Conclusion

138 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

7.1

CASE STUDY

THE CHARLES DICKENS PRIMARY SCHOOL Southwark, London

Interior designer:

Contents Design

Client:

The Charles Dickens Primary School

Main Contractor:

Graeme Ash

Construction cost:

£55,000

Completion:

2014

q Teachers share ideas within the dining space, with curriculum material close by.

p Bespoke furniture creates an apartment feel rather than institutional. { A former store cupboard now provides quiet marking space.

T

his project demonstrates the benefits of a streamlined approach to education design. With a budget of only £55,000, the school set a brief to refurbish the staff areas in their existing Victorian building. Their main requirement was to retain staff in this outstanding inner city London school, recognising that they often work long hours and need high quality spaces in which to prepare. They also wanted a design that enhanced the character of their Victorian school. Appointed as interior designers, Contents Design set up workshops with the staff and identified the key issues:

> > >

A need for collaborative working. Efficient use at peak times. The provision of quiet work space.

The final interior design scheme provided high quality furniture and finishes to convey the feeling of an apartment. Bespoke furniture, such as the shelving and workstations, were designed to promote collaborative working as well as provide quiet workspace. The new layout provides

greater flexibility, allowing for efficient use at peak times. It is inclusive, catering for the different needs of support staff and teachers. The end result is that teachers are using the space more to share ideas and teaching methods, which leads to them being inspired and passing this on to the children. ‘It is the first time we have used an interior designer for school works but this ensured the project was completed on site in two weeks and with zero defects. The learning is that for us there is value in working with an interior designer to ensure we thoroughly understood what we wanted and then got what we wanted! From a financial perspective, it is the first time a project has finished on time and under budget.’ Cassie Buchanan, Headteacher.

140 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

7.2

CASE STUDY

KENSINGTON CREATES, KENSINGTON ALDRIDGE ACADEMY London

Architect:

HOK

Client:

The Aldridge Foundation

Main Contractor:

Dealerward

Construction cost:

£110,000

Completion:

2014

personalise. As the academy was under construction the design also needed to minimise disruption and delay to the main contract.

p 3D isometric view showing the relationship between the Kensington Creates Hub and the main entrance to Kensington Aldridge Academy. u A variety of entrepreneurial spaces for private and collaborative work, presentations and interaction with the wider academy. t View from inside the academy towards the Creates Hub. The glazed ends to each pod showcase the Creates Hub and maintain a controlled environment for the users. Floor to ceiling pin boards maximise wall space, storage integrated within the fabric of the walls.

A

t each Aldridge Academy, flexible, modern workspaces have been created for students and members of the community to work together to start their own businesses. Kensington Creates Hub is the most recent of these incubation centres, based within the Kensington Aldridge Academy in West London. The Creates Hubs are intended as aspirational spaces, giving students insight into the world of work. Funding for these spaces comes from separate and limited budgets. The Foundation had a vision for how the Creates Hubs would work and contract with the surrounding school environment. They developed a detailed brief and the funding to pursue this vision. The challenge for the design team was to provide a highly cost-effective solution that was reflective of contemporary workspaces, a collaborative environment with a variety of different work style settings that users could

The result was the outcome of a collaboration between the Education and Workplace teams at HOK, sharing their knowledge to provide a variety of entrepreneurial spaces, maximising the budget by ensuring that all interventions in the space had multiple functions. Design and construction was developed with furniture manufacturer Dealerward with whom HOK had worked with previously on workplace interior projects in the City of London. The team developed a standardised birch faced plywood panel that was repeatable and simple to clip together. An architectural language arose that reflected the nature of the construction method, and became a theme that was expressed throughout the project. Importantly, the off-site nature of manufacture meant that quality was carefully controlled and construction limited to a pain free two-week period. The final Hubs have proved very popular with both students and local entrepreneurs.

142 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

7.3

x High level view looking over the ‘Piazza Cafe’ across the ‘Dining Lake’ and beyond to the Learning Resource Centre.

CASE STUDY

GATEACRE SCHOOL Belle Vale, Liverpool

Architect:

BDP

FFE Consultant:

Spacezero

Client:

Liverpool City Council

Main Contractor:

Balfour Beatty Construction Services

Construction cost:

£140,000 FFE budget of £24m total

Completion:

2012

G

ateacre School, a new school in Liverpool for 1,800 students, wanted their spaces to spark creativity in their young people – they wanted them to be fun. FFE consultants Spacezero focused on the school’s classrooms and central atrium, a threestorey space split into a reception, informal dining area, formal dining space and learning resource centre. Using images generated from the BIM model to help visualise the atrium along with aspirational images and hand sketches, allowed the school to get fully involved in developing the new look Gateacre. Creative designs and punchy colour schemes made sure the atrium was attractive from vantage points on all levels. Headteacher, Gerard Lonergan, and Business Manager Ian Thornhill, drove the project with enthusiasm, encouraging the designers to extend the original brief. Originally the LRC was to be fully enclosed but collectively it was instead decided that it should be part of an open-plan, organic atrium.

With a budget of only £140,000 for the FFE it was a challenge to meet the school’s high expectations, but working collaboratively and sharing a common vision helped ensure the spaces delight and engage the students.

p Piazza style cafe area – with feature banquette seating unit and living olive tree. y Learning Resource Centre ‘Reading Lawn’ – with artificial turf and decor end panels with iconic views of Liverpool.

The design of distinct spaces inspired by land, river and sea allows the outside to be channelled into the central space. Students enjoy features such as an olive tree enclosed in the centre of the banquette seating, an immediate reminder of the outdoors. The dining space has rich blue hues, intended to imitate a wave.

‘It was a great experience to work with the team, not only on the technical side of sourcing furniture and products but also in getting involved with the designs. There should be an added mention for the way in which Spacezero interpreted the visions in my head and turned them into tangible designs that really have made this school aesthetically outstanding.’ Gerard Lonergan, Headteacher.

‘A building project, however large or small, can accelerate the normal pace of change. It is an opportunity to question the usual way of doing things and to take control of shaping the environment and its relationship to learning’

8

THINKING LONG TERM MANAGING CHANGE Mairi Johnson

Christ’s College in Guildford (DSDHA) is a 700-place Church of England School where one front door welcomes all pupils, staff and visitors into the central atrium, creating a strong focus for the school community and embodying a vision of the school as ‘one house’ with spiritual and pastoral values.

S

chools are built, they are maintained, they are adapted and added to, they are demolished and they are rebuilt. Many schools will find themselves in buildings which they had no hand in designing, so they need to constantly review their estate to understand how they can get the most from it. Successful schools will be looking at every aspect of their resources to make sure they are using them to best advantage in support of their strategic goals. Their buildings are one of a school’s major resources, alongside its staff and students, and good schools will make sure that the effectiveness of the learning environment is part of that ongoing conversation. Most schools will not be lucky enough to receive large-scale capital investment in the near future. Even those that have been rebuilt or remodelled may find that five or ten years later they need to modify their spaces to cater for changes in educational delivery. This chapter is about adapting to thrive – making the most of the spaces we have and constantly questioning and reviewing what can be done to improve them with limited resources. Whatever the circumstances, the ability to adapt and change has the potential to bring new energy and, if that energy is channelled positively, there is always something somewhere that can be improved as a result. Most teachers and students are skilled at making do with the space and equipment that they have. It is easy to forget that the buildings we know well are flexible and can be adapted, and that making a few simple alterations to the learning environment could fundamentally improve the student and staff experience.

147 Thinking Long Term: Managing Change

Introduction

148 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

A building project, however large or small, can accelerate the normal pace of change. It is an opportunity to question the usual way of doing things and to take control of shaping the environment and its relationship to learning. Even if major capital works are not planned, or budgets are limited, reviewing how the building works, and what can be done to improve it, can begin a conversation with staff and students about ways of working that can be productive and empowering.

What makes change happen? The impetus for change to the physical environment can come from many sources – some are imposed from outside and some come from within the school community. Being aware of the source of the change will assist in accommodating it and benefiting from it. Here are a few of the major sources of change and examples of their possible impact:

} Government policy: Free school meals for all, infant age children could require a new kitchen and an expanded dining area. } Evolving learning practice: New technology in the classroom could result in a whole new style of learning experience which needs changes to the type and layout of furniture in the classroom. } Local circumstances: A rise in pupil numbers could equate to a need for additional classrooms;

competition from other schools could require improvements to the school grounds to provide unique learning opportunities and enhance the image of the school. } Routine cycle of change: Building maintenance could be an opportunity to refresh the colour scheme and thereby the character of the interior or exterior of the school. } Evolution of the school as an institution: Taking on pupils of a different age range or adopting a new specialism. Both of these could result in a new teaching block or an extension and the need to adapt external areas. } New headteacher: The new head could bring a change in pedagogy such as team teaching, which requires the ability to combine a group of classrooms. Alternatively, the new head might want to change the school’s relationship with parents, which could result in upgrading the front entrance or renewing the reception area.

As well as these external drivers, schools also have the opportunity, as part of their annual strategic planning process, to regularly review their estates and identify where change is needed. Being proactive rather than waiting for change to be imposed from elsewhere can create momentum and energy, and a real sense of ownership.

change and getting the best from it Once a school has identified that change is necessary, what should it do to make sure it gets the best from the process? What can design teams offer their clients so that even small projects are part of a long-term process for managing change? Here are some suggestions for maximising the opportunity: 1 Have a big picture masterplan that encompasses educational changes as well as physical change. It is unusual to have sufficient funding to completely revolutionise the entire teaching and learning environment in one sweep. It might be necessary to progress in small stages as money becomes available and holiday periods provide the opportunity to carry out construction work. An overall masterplan will set out the large-scale ambition so that smaller projects can be seen as pieces of a larger whole. The masterplan could be commissioned from the design team as a stand-alone piece of work. They will look at the existing buildings and consider their future potential. A range of options can then be drawn up to explore what the final outcome could be and how best to get there. Some existing buildings may only need a light refresh, they could be reconfigured into a different use or they may be near the end of their useful life and not warrant significant investment. Sometimes there may be difficult decisions. For example, a relatively new part of the school may be preventing the realisation of a larger scale redesign that would bring significant benefits to pupils.

The masterplan should also include educational aspects such as the wish to offer a new subject, or a move to mixed age tutor groups. Learning happens in every space in the school. As well as the core curriculum, pupils also learn how to be friends and how to work, play and eat together. The masterplan needs to consider all of these aspects of school experience and how they could be positively affected by change. It is important to articulate the less tangible outcomes that are desired, even if they don’t seem to be directly quantifiable. These could be a desire for calmer circulation areas so that the school day is less stressful, or an increase in staff satisfaction, or a drop in reported incidents of antisocial behaviour. 2 Break the big plan into manageable steps. Only Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound – ordinary people have more success in taking on a challenge one piece at a time. It is therefore advisable to break the big vision for physical and educational change into manageable steps, each with a clear brief and desired outcome. The physical masterplan is likely to be organised into delivery phases so the construction happens one stage at a time. If educational change is also planned, it is valuable to rehearse the pedagogic or organisational change in the old buildings first. Alternatively it may be preferred to configure the new buildings so that they reflect the old teaching practices initially but can be reorganised later, allowing staff to adapt over time. For instance, there may be a desire to increase interactivity and team spirit amongst staff. The long-term plan might be to create a staff work and social area but an interim arrangement could be to

149 Thinking Long Term: Managing Change

Ten tips for embracing

150 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

use a particular classroom for an hour after school to encourage teachers to do their preparation together rather than working alone in their department or at home. As another example, the headteacher might want to introduce project-based learning for the whole school. It is envisaged that this will need openplan workshop areas with enough space to brief a whole year group and side rooms for smaller group tutorials. This configuration could be set up in one part of the school for trialling and training before being implemented further. Investing time early on to consider the options and plan how the school will manage during construction is extremely valuable. Everything will then be ready when intense engagement is needed. 3 Decide who is in charge and empower them. There is no substitute for good leadership in ensuring the long-term success of a project. Often the headteacher will be the person who leads change but it could be a deputy head or an active governor. If the change leader is not the headteacher then they must be given clear authority for the role so that they can gain the trust of all the other parties involved and be able to deliver effectively. It is very difficult to lead and participate in change at the same time as doing a day job and the nominated project leader will need to be released from some of their normal duties. This could require additional support being drafted in or low priority tasks being slow-tracked to free-up time. Schools have a cohort of people who are involved in the day-to-day leadership and management of the institution including governors and academy sponsors. Managing the leaders requires deliberate effort so that they feel involved in setting direction

and decision making but are confident to allow the project leader to get on with the job. The same advice can also be given to the design team. Decide who is going to be the lead client contact and ensure that they are aware of how all aspects of the design are developing. This doesn’t mean that no other member of the team ever talks to the school. It does mean that the ambition is to create a well thought-through scheme in which all the various aspects work together to deliver an efficient solution to the client’s needs. Even the most persuasive person can meet with some resistance – sometimes justifiably. Within discussions it will be necessary to be clear about what is negotiable and what isn’t. Strong leadership is important but be ready to adapt if unforeseen circumstances require it. 4 Create and sustain momentum. Sometimes it can be hard to get things moving. People want to stay in their comfort zone and see no reason to do things differently. Refuseniks need to be convinced as to how change will benefit them. It might be difficult to identify an individual advantage however and the positive impact on the larger community may need to be cited as the desired outcome. Good change is viral – once started it can take on a life of its own. This effect can be positively harnessed by creating a cadre of change agents within the school, who themselves are early adopters, and will demonstrate and explain the change to their peers. This can help to accelerate and embed the change so that it is more likely to stick. Once a new configuration seems to be established, ongoing support will be needed to ensure that the change is permanent.

Physical change can seem quite slow. Regular communication is important even if there isn’t much happening. If no news is forthcoming, people may invent their own which can be detrimental to the success of the project. Regular communication will also help to build up trust so that when a burst of activity occurs, such as work starting on site, the school community will be able to keep calm and carry on as required. 6 Get help with what you don’t know. No one can be expected to know everything. The design team won’t be able to teach a class of nine year olds for a term and teachers may not be able to visualise three dimensional space from a two dimensional plan. For non-architects, drawings, models, furniture samples etc. can be very helpful in visualising the physical changes proposed and considering what their impact will be. Visiting other projects is also very worthwhile. Imagining something different from day-to-day working experience is not easy and seeing a fully realised alternative can assist people in making that mental leap. These visits can be used as a way of engaging staff, starting a dialogue and helping the design team understand what is wanted. For the design team, spending some time in the school during a normal day is powerfully informative. It is also important to understand

the major events that happen in the school year such as exams, special study weeks that require a different timetable, or festivals. 7 Pay attention to the invisible. Some of the most important aspects of a good learning environment can’t be seen. A room’s temperature, ventilation and acoustic qualities make an enormous difference to people’s comfort and ability to concentrate, communicate and learn. A building can be the most beautiful place imaginable but if it’s too hot, or the echoey acoustics means there is a constant din, then it can’t be considered to be a good design. The heating, lighting and ventilation will also make a significant contribution to the cost of running a school long term so it’s very important that they work harmoniously and efficiently. The electricity used for lighting is often the largest item on a school’s energy bill. Describing these aspects of the design as invisible is rather misleading. The strategy for thermal comfort, lighting and acoustics will have a big impact on other parts of the design such as the size and type of windows, floor to ceiling height and the depth of classrooms. For instance, if a space that was a staff room is to be used for teaching, then the acoustics will probably need to be softened with the addition of more absorptive surfaces such as curtains, carpets or sound absorbing panels to the walls. These can make a huge difference to the usability of a space. The long-term masterplan for a school might show the teaching spaces arranged in different configurations as the years go by. The heating and ventilation design will need to be able to adapt to these changes which may be straightforward

151 Thinking Long Term: Managing Change

5 Plan communications. The person with the job of leading change will need to make sure that everyone else, including all staff and governors, understands what is happening and the expected result. It is helpful if the explanation of the change can take the form of a compelling vision in which everyone can see his or her place in the brighter future.

152 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

if they are known from the start but much more difficult if they are unplanned. Also, if it is known that in the future a particular building is to be extended, then it is possible to build spare capacity into heating, cooling and ventilation systems from the outset. It is typically much more difficult or expensive to add these later. 8 Think long term. Even once the initial masterplan is realised, the evolution will still continue. The decisions that will be made during a building project will affect the school for many years. It is impossible to know how education will be organised in the future but it is possible to design a building that is reasonably adaptable and can easily be extended or reconfigured. This means designing the structure, windows and building services so that internal walls could be placed in different positions. It can also mean taking care over the location of stairs, lifts and service shafts so that if the building needs to be extended, they won’t be in the way, eg if stairs are placed at the very end of a block then it may be difficult to extend in that direction. The easiest way to make a space flexible is to build it slightly bigger than its basic use requires, although this may require manipulation of area and funding allowances. It doesn’t mean that every classroom has to be huge however – not every space can or should be a learning barn – it just needs to be big enough that the tables and chairs can be arranged in several ways and perhaps leave some open space for demonstrations. Some shared rooms in a school are designated as multifunctional spaces. Special care needs to be taken with these because there is a risk that they do many things but none of them well. Multifunction spaces work best if the types of activity taking place there are similar, eg a room

that is used for both art and science might work well because both require space and water. A room used for art and music might be less successful. For school communities that have been used to operating out of relatively decrepit premises with poor environmental conditions, new buildings are likely to mean a complete change in the management and maintenance regime. This will be particularly true if the buildings were procured under a public-private partnership arrangement. The new buildings are likely to have more sophisticated controls for their environmental systems and different finishes may require a change in the cleaning regime. 9 Keep an open mind. Working with other people will always bring unexpected perspectives and ideas. The pressure on school places means that all kinds of buildings are being considered as locations for learning. This approach is encouraged by central government, which has tried to remove as many of the barriers to using existing buildings for schools as possible. It may be that radical solutions are considered as part of the project, for example, using parts of the school site or buildings that staff never imagined could be suitable for educational purposes. Or there may be discussions about new ways of delivering the curriculum, such as changes to the organisation of the school day, or making use of off-site facilities for PE. 10 Know when to stop. The day-to-day flicker of change can make it seem that nothing is permanent and everything is in constant flux. It can appear that no decision is final and there will always be a chance for one more iteration of the design. However, building projects require some definite decisions at certain points.

Changing requirements mid-design is expensive; changing requirements during construction is extremely problematic and can lead to legal challenge. Avoid these situations by making sure you know exactly what’s happening and why. Also, a school will know how much change it can deal with at any point. It may be that additional disruption is unmanageable if the school is under pressure to raise standards quickly. Adding more stress at particular times of the year, such as around SATS or GCSE exams, is also undesirable.

Conclusion Change can be difficult, especially if it’s imposed from outside. Even when you think you’ve got there, staying changed can be difficult too. It is fine to admit that it is challenging, but can be damaging to the morale of staff, pupils and the design team if there is unrelenting negativity. Even if the change is being imposed from outside, try to look for the positives in the situation. And just when you think you’re about to get a grip, something happens and the cycle starts again. That something could be an unexpected discovery on site, such as asbestos or poor ground conditions, which was not budgeted for and will mean that money will have to be found by cutting other aspects of the work. Or there could be a change in central policy that affects the design or funding of the project.

If this happens, all you can do is return to the beginning of this list of tips. What was the overall goal in the first place? Can the current project still move you towards that ambition, albeit in a different way or not as far? Can you achieve the educational changes, even if the physical changes are going to be scaled back? How will this new circumstance be communicated to everyone who needs to know? If change is an inevitable part of school life, an explicit culture of continuous improvement can harness that ongoing evolution to positive effect. If staff and students are encouraged to reflect on their current practice and try out new approaches, this helps foster an understanding of how the physical environment influences and works in partnership with the school’s ethos, organisation and curriculum delivery. At that point the learning environment – however old or new it is – becomes an important strand in the school’s strategic planning, constantly being scrutinised and reviewed to ensure all users get the very best from it.

153 Thinking Long Term: Managing Change

Once these points have been reached and a part or all of the design has been fixed, it is very costly in terms of time, money and people’s patience if the client subsequently changes their mind.

154 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

8.1

CASE STUDY

ERCALL WOOD TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE Wellington, Shropshire

Architect:

FaulknerBrowns Architects

Client:

Telford & Wrekin Council

Main Contractor:

Shepherd Construction

Construction cost:

£11.6m

Completion:

2014

q View towards main entrance.

space skewers the learning block and connects it to the hall block, forming the social hub of the school. These interlocking forms define discrete external spaces for different activities and allow each element to be extended as required to accommodate increased future capacity.

p Triple height forum linking learning, halls and support spaces. q A compact plan formed of linear elements maximises external space whilst facilitating reorganisation, reconfiguration and extension.

E

rcall Wood Technology College provides 900 secondary school places at an existing school site in Telford. The new building is part of an ongoing project to replace eight schools within Telford and Wrekin under the PfS Contractors Framework. The building form, located deep into the site to avoid the footprint of existing buildings, consists of three simple elements, each three storeys high. A hall block to the south acts as a buffer, shielding a curved learning block from solar gain and the noise of the nearby motorway. A wedge-shaped triple-height forum

The compact three-storey form minimises distance between elements of accommodation, allowing future changes in curriculum and organisational structure, as well as supporting the school’s cross-curricula learning agenda. In this model strong vertical adjacencies are crucial; these are achieved by the introduction of wide flights of tiered seating and open stairways linking floors via generous day-lit open learning decks. These form the heart of each floorplate, providing access to adjacent enclosed learning spaces and strong visual connections between floors. Adaptability in configuring each floorplate is maximised using a regular structural grid with consolidated cores at the perimeter of each zone. Modular fenestration allows lightweight partitions to be readily relocated. The services strategy entails primary distribution through circulation areas and reconfigurable modular components for branch services to individual spaces. By addressing extendibility of form, adaptability of layout and flexibility of organisation, the building can respond to a range of changing needs without compromising the quality and functionality of the original design.

156 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

8.2

CASE STUDY

BONHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL Bonhill, Argyll and Bute

Architect:

Ryder Architecture

Client:

West Dunbartonshire Council

Main Contractor:

Interserve

Construction cost:

£5m

Completion:

2010

I y The form of the building creates a protected school courtyard to provide safe social space and further extend the learning environment with additional external learning and teaching space for children of all ages.

n April 2007, West Dunbartonshire Council commissioned Ryder Architecture for the design and development of Bonhill Primary School, a new 220-place village school. A prime consideration for the design team was to provide an inspirational, welcoming and functional solution capable of accommodating

u View from the playing field showing one of the curved teaching wings and the hall to the left hand side.

changes in school roll, management approaches and educational pedagogy. Flexibility for the present and future use of the building has been delivered through careful consideration of adjacencies, subtle, flexible boundaries between, and multifunctional use of shared areas.

q View across the courtyard towards the school’s internal and external dining space.

The initial concept for the building and site layout can be traced directly to an early engagement session with the school, where the idea of creating a protected external courtyard space was proposed by one of the pupil groups. This external area

is defined and bounded by indoor teaching spaces. The layout is easily understood with clear public, semipublic and private zones. Institutional corridors have been avoided, with learning activity possible in circulation spaces. Movable partitions between class rooms and the breakout area provide excellent access to shared teaching materials and other resources, supported by adjoining storage facilities and flexible furniture layouts. Ease of transition from indoors to outdoors maximises the range of learning opportunities. The school grounds extend the educational experience outside the traditional classroom and provide an enhanced environment that supports additional learning opportunities including active play, quiet social gathering and sports activities. As well as a science meadow and wildlife garden, a mixed hedgerow forms the boundary to the north and east encouraging biodiversity and providing additional learning opportunities.

158 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

8.3

CASE STUDY

STANLEY PARK HIGH Carshalton, London

Architect:

Haverstock

Client:

London Borough of Sutton

Main Contractor:

BAM Construction

Construction cost:

£35m

Completion:

2011

q The studios can open up to the street and be used as ‘shop fronts’.

p The learning street connects the four schools and acts as a multifunctional flexible space. { Ground floor plan showing the learning street and flexible studios.

S

tanley Park High School’s particular and innovative pedagogy was key throughout the briefing process. Their approach required flexible learning and teaching spaces able to adapt to large groups of up to 90 students or traditional classes of 30. Central to their vision was a school that felt like a single campus despite the curriculum being split into three zones: World, Performance and Trade. A fourth part of the school, Horizon, was to accommodate 56 students with Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC). A further 35 ASC students with less severe needs are mainly integrated within the mainstream environment. The architect’s response to these challenges was to break the school down into smaller, more intimate areas through a ‘schools within a school’ approach. Visual and physical links between the four schools are through the central atrium/learning street, thereby encouraging a strong, unified whole-school identity. Located at ground level across the atrium are three large studio spaces for Years 7 and 8. These

are designed to help the transition from primary to secondary school by offering team teaching approaches and light practical activities alongside class based teaching to prepare for upper years. The three studios for World, Performance and Trade are complemented by the school’s LRC and all four spaces benefit from full height glazed screens into the atrium (acting as ‘shop fronts’) and large sliding doors for easy access and breakout. The atrium is a learning and social space as well as for primary circulation. It is designed for flexible use including lectures, activities related to the studios, personalised learning, group working and hold whole school assemblies. The structural design of the school provides an open floorplate and regular column grid. This allows for future adaptability and subdivision either as traditional classrooms or as larger studios.

160 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

CONCLUSION ‘Tomorrow’s illiterate will not be the man who can’t read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn.’ Psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy, quoted by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock (Random House, 1970), Ch. 18. It is an often-quoted truism regarding the future delivery of education that the only thing of which we can be sure is that we don’t know what it will look like. Certainly, we cannot predict the world it will need to serve. Thirty year-olds in work today are already doing tasks and using tools that were never dreamt of when they were in school at the end of the last century. The ever-increasing pace of change means that today’s students will need to retrain not once or twice, but throughout their lifetimes. In contrast, even in the relatively recent past, knowledge was a restricted resource, held within education by teachers whose primary role was to pass it on, along with an understanding of its use and application. In the world of Wikipedia and Twitter however, knowledge is freely available and ubiquitous. Instead of merely acquiring and retaining knowledge, today’s students need to know how to source, evaluate, manage and manipulate it. While this was always the case to a degree, the balance between knowledge acquisition and learning skills has changed fundamentally. Combine the new technologydependent economy with an increasing internationalism in the employment market and it is clear that above all, today’s students need to leave school with the skills to learn and relearn rather than simply having acquired specific aspects of knowledge.

In developing this book we have had the rare luxury of reflecting on not just the recent past, during which we have seen a flurry of school building, but also on the historical relationship between education and design. Collectively we need to be better at understanding and using what we already know, evidencing what works and reminding those who oversee the funding regimes that there is a rich history on which to draw. For example, when we compare many new school buildings with 19th and 20th century models, the similarities are more apparent than the differences. Although the technologies and teaching methods used within schools have changed dramatically, the buildings themselves are very familiar. Building Bulletin 103, published in 2014, lists exactly the same categories of space as the first Building Bulletins over 60 years ago – classrooms, laboratories, workshops, halls, dining areas, offices, storage, circulation and so on. Moreover, the balance in space allocated to these different functions remains virtually identical. Compare instead how the workplace has changed in the same period (from factories to call centres, cellular to open-plan, hierarchical to democratic) and the divergence is even more apparent. While workplaces have become more varied and even virtual, the latest guidance on school design suggests the most proscriptive, rigid and standardised requirements for a generation. Much of what is included in this book is not radical – it is practical, appropriate and based on experience. It has a focus on doing the right things, in the right way, with the right people involved. Successful buildings are the result of good processes – having a shared vision and getting the brief right, communicating well, using the latest technologies and construction methods to drive

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of school design over the last century is the debate around standardisation and the various attempts to bring some framework to what a school should look like. The Victorians did it, as did pre- and postwar educationalists and architects. More recently, the BSF Exemplar Designs started the conversation about how schools should respond to new models of education. While the latest iteration, the EFA’s Baseline Designs, are not intended as a ‘cookie cutter’ solution to be replicated across the country, they do present similar challenges to their predecessors. Once you set a template and make it the driver for funding, you have to be very sure that there is enough flexibility within the system to allow it to stand the test of time. It is inevitable that recent reductions in area allowances and funding have inevitably reduced that flexibility, both in terms of design freedom and schools’ use of space. Another risk of standardised designs is that a one-size-fits-all approach also means an all-ornothing solution. Even if such designs are fit for today’s needs, new school buildings are intended to last for 60 years or more. If the standardised model proves inflexible and unable to meet changing requirements then there is a risk that we will end up with a generation of similarly obsolete buildings. Were this to happen, it would not be for the first time. The system-built schools of the 1950s and 1960s suffer the same repeated flaws, most notably with regard to their environmental performance in a technology intensive, high energy-cost, low carbon future.

‘It would be a mistake to assume that the present-day educational system is unchanging. On the contrary, it is undergoing rapid change. But much of this change is no more than an attempt to refine the existent machinery, making it ever more efficient in pursuit of obsolete goals.’ Alvin Toffler in Future Shock (1970), Ch. 18. With such uncertainty regarding tomorrow’s requirements we need above all to deliver flexible and adaptable buildings. Irrespective of particular funding regimes or procurement systems we must therefore demand: } Continued experimentation, without which we will never discover those creative solutions that can best meet and adapt to future demands. } Rigorous evaluation of the success and failures of different approaches, and debate about how we deliver design solutions that are both affordable and flexible enough to meet the inevitable changes any school building will encounter in its lifetime. } An engagement process that allows for vigorous dialogue between educationalists, designers and building users as to what makes an effective learning environment. This book seeks to be part of that dialogue, informing those involved as to each other’s concerns, highlighting common issues and identifying successful and potentially repeatable solutions. Nick Mirchandani & Sharon Wright

161 Conclusion

down costs and deliver value for money. Despite the fact that the examples range from new-build schools with large budgets to small refurbishments with limited funding, all show a level of expertise, creativity and innovation that demonstrate the sector’s resilience to political or funding changes.

164 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

APPENDIX 1: DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE While many aspects of school design remain constant or only slowly evolving, statutory requirements, official guidance, funding regimes and procurement methods change frequently. Although the following information is correct at the time of writing, it is important to ensure that it is up-to-date. This is currently best established from the Department for Education (DfE) or Education Funding Agency (EFA) websites, both of which offer comprehensive and easily accessible information.

Legislation There are actually very few statutory requirements that apply specifically to schools and those that do exist have in recent times been revised to make them more flexible. Key documents include: } The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. These apply to all existing and new schools maintained by a local authority. They cover toilet and washing facilities, medical accommodation, health, safety and welfare, acoustics, lighting, water supplies and outdoor space. } The Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010, as amended 2014. Part 5 prescribes standards for premises and accommodation and was revised in 2012. } The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage 2012. Set standards for pupils under the age of five at both maintained and independent schools. It includes requirements for premises, such as minimum space standards and the provision of toilets and wash basins. Other legislation of relevance to school design and development includes: } The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. } The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, together with its Approved Code of Practice and Guidance. } The Equality Act 2010. } The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFO). } The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (COSHH). } Environmental Protection Act 1990. } Site Waste Management Regulations 2008.

Regulatory Guidance } Standards for School Premises 2013. Non-statutory advice regarding obligations and duties in relation to the School Premises Regulations 2012 and Part 5 of the Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010 as amended. } Boarding Schools National Minimum Standards 2013. Including standards relating to suitable accommodation (Standard 5). } Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards 2013. Including standards relating to suitable accommodation (Standard 5). Like almost all development, schools are also covered by national and local planning controls and by the Building Regulations. The Approved Documents, which advise how the latter may be met, refer to three of the DfE’s Building Bulletins (BBs) which therefore assume regulatory status. These are: } Building Bulletin 93, Acoustic Design of Schools, 2003. Section 1 of this document has been superseded by Building Bulletin 93, Acoustic Design of Schools: Performance Standards (2014, revised February 2015) which sets out minimum performance standards for the acoustics of school buildings and describes the normal means of demonstrating compliance with the Building Regulations. Sections 2 to 7 are due to be superseded by ‘Acoustics of Schools: a design guide’, to be published in 2015 by the Association of Noise Consultants and the Institute of Acoustics. } Building Bulletin 100, Design for Fire Safety in Schools, 2007. } Building Bulletin 101, Ventilation of school buildings, 2006. BB100 and BB101 are currently under review and due to be replaced. In the meantime it is essential to ensure that projectspecific requirements are understood as these may vary according to the specific funding and procurement route.

Design Requirements Although individual project briefs may have much in common, there will also be variations. Independent schools are likely to have the most divergent requirements but state schools may also vary from more general standards in response to particular circumstances or the preferences of the individual school, the local authority or academy trust. Requirements may also vary according to the procurement route. For example, projects procured under the Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP) are required to meet its facilities output specification (FOS) which varies slightly

Design Guidance The following documents offer non-statutory guidance and best-practice. A number are no longer current but are included here as their recommendations remain valuable, even where standards have been superseded. Many, but not all, are available online.

Building Bulletins (BBs) } BB80: Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide (DfES, 1999 revised 2004). } BB81: Design and Technology Accommodation in Schools: A Design Guide (DfES, 1996 revised 2004). } BB85: School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice (DfEE, 1997). } BB86: Music Accommodation in Secondary Schools (DfEE, 1997). } BB88: Fume Cupboards in Schools (DfEE, 1998). } BB89: Art Accommodation in Secondary Schools (DfEE, 1988). } BB90: Lighting Design for Schools (DfEE, 1999). } BB92: Modern Foreign Languages Accommodation: A Design Guide (DCSF, 2000).

} Schools for the Future: Designing Schools for Extended Services (DfES, 2006). } Schools for the Future: Designing School Grounds (DfES, 2006). } Schools for the Future: Design of Sustainable Schools. Case Studies (DfES, 2006). } Schools for the Future: Exemplar designs – Concepts and Ideas (DfES). } Schools for the Future: Inspirational Design for Kitchen & Dining Spaces (DfES, 2007). } Schools for the Future: Inspirational Design for PE & Sports Spaces (DfES, 2005). } Schools for the Future: Project Faraday – Exemplar Designs for Science (DfES, 2007). } Schools for the Future: Transforming Schools – An Inspirational Guide to Remodelling Secondary Schools (DfES, 2004).

Standard Specifications, Layouts and Dimensions Series (SSLDs) } Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 1: Internal partitions in schools (DfES, 2007). } Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 2: Floor finishes in schools (DfES, 2007). } Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 3: Toilets in schools (DfES, 2007). } Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 4: Lighting systems in schools (DfES, 2007). } Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 5: Roof coverings in schools (DfES, 2008).

} BB93: Acoustic Design of Schools: Performance Standards (DfE, 2014).

} Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 6: Internal stairways in schools (DCSF, 2008).

} BB95: Schools for the Future: Designs for learning communities (DfES, 2002).

} Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 7: Internal doorsets in schools (DCSF, 2008).

} BB100: Design for Fire Safety in Schools (DCSF, 2007). } BB101: Ventilation of school buildings (DCSF, 2006).

} Standard specifications, layouts and dimensions 8: Sprinklers in schools (DCSF, 2008).

} BB102: Designing for Disabled Children and Children with SEN (DCSF, 2008).

Sport England

} BB103: Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools (DFE/EFA, 2014).

Schools for the Future Series } Classrooms of the Future (DfES, 2003). } Exemplar Designs: Concepts and ideas (DCSF, 2004).

} Comparative Sizes of Sports Pitches & Courts (Sport England, 2011). } Sports Halls Design & Layouts (Sport England, 2012). } Artificial Surfaces for Outdoor Sports – (Sport England, 2013). } Designing for PE and Sports – School Sites (Sport England, 2013).

165 Appendix 1

for capital and PFI funded projects. For both internal and external spaces, the FOS covers everything from design principles to spatial, performance, environmental and servicing requirements, maintenance and operability, ICT infrastructure and FFE. A similar but different FOS is applicable to projects procured under the EFA Contractors Framework. These are not currently available online but are in circulation via the EFA.

166 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

APPENDIX 2: FUNDING, AREA ALLOWANCES AND ‘BASELINE’ DESIGNS Funding In very simple terms, funding for new state school buildings is established on the basis of building area, which is itself a function of student numbers and age range. Further adjustment is made for geographic location within the UK and for project abnormals such as a steeply sloping site that would incur additional construction costs. Capital expenditure on new school buildings can come via a number of different funding routes including those that are managed centrally by the EFA (eg the Priority School Building Programme) and allocations via local authorities (eg the Targeted Basic Needs Programme). These change regularly and up-to-date information and further detail should be sought on the DfE/EFA websites. Project-specific additional funding may also be available from a variety of other sources, for the enhancement of the EFAfunded provision or for additional facilities.

Area Allowances The relationship between the number and age of students and the appropriate internal and external areas is defined in Building Bulletin 103: Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools. This document provides non-statutory minimum area guidelines for school buildings and grounds for students aged between three and 19. It covers all state schools, including mainstream academies and free schools, except special schools and alternative provision. Building Bulletin 103 includes simple formulae for establishing minimum gross internal areas, and hence funding. It supersedes Building Bulletins 98 (secondary) and 99 (primary) over which it reflects a reduction in gross internal area of approximately 15% and 6% respectively. As well as recommending overall areas, BB103 provides more detailed guidance on the minimum requirements for various categories of space within the whole, including both net and non-net areas. It also refers to a website providing a room-byroom interactive Schedule of Accommodation. At the time of writing however this is still not available online although draft versions are in circulation via the EFA.

The area allowances for SEN schools are currently under review. At the time of writing the most up-to-date information available on the DfE/EFA websites is Building Bulletin 102 but this is shortly to be superseded by a new Building Bulletin 104 which is currently out for consultation. Significant area reductions are anticipated.

Baseline Designs The EFA’s Baseline designs for schools were developed in response to the recommendations of the 2011 Review of Education Capital led by Sebastian James which called for greater standardisation of design and specification. Designs for a variety of different sized primary and secondary schools are available on the DfE/EFA website along with explanatory documents regarding their acoustic, daylight, access and inclusion, environmental services, fire safety, natural ventilation, circulation and structural strategies. They are intended to illustrate how the requirements of the Priority School Building Programme’s PFI Facilities Output Specification can be met within cost and area allowances.

Schools and Early Years Design, UK Achieving well designed schools through PFI. Client guide (CABE, 2002) Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments (Routledge, 2000) Being Involved in School Design. A guide (CABE, 2004) Better Buildings, Better Design, Better Education (DfES, 2007) Building for Sure Start: A Design Guide (DfES, 2004) Children’s Spaces (Routledge, 2006) Creating Excellent Primary Schools. A Guide for Clients (CABE, 2010) Creating Excellent Secondary Schools. A Guide for Clients (CABE, 2007) England’s Schools. History, Architecture and Adaptation (English Heritage, 2010) Evidence of the Impact of Sustainable Schools (DCSF, 2010) Joined Up Design for Schools (Merrell, 2012 Learning Environments for Pupil Referral Units (HMSO, 2007) New from Old: Transforming Secondary Schools Through Refurbishment (CABE, 2009) Nurseries: A Design Guide (Routledge, 2012) Our School Building Matters (CABE, 2010) Picturing School Design. A visual guide to secondary school buildings and their surroundings using the Design Quality Indicator for schools (CABE, 2005) Primary Ideas: Projects to enhance primary school environments (DfES, 2006)

Primary school case studies. Five schools (CABE, 2009) Refurbishing Historic School Buildings (English Heritage, 2010) Schools and Kindergartens: A Design Manual (Birkauser, 2007) Spaces for Young Children: A Practical Guide to Planning, Designing and Building the Perfect Space (National Children’s Bureau Enterprises Ltd, 2012) SureStart, Every Building Matters (CABE, 2008) The Design of Learning Spaces (Continuum, 2010) 21st Century Schools: Learning Environments of the Future (Building Futures: CABE/RIBA, 2004)

Schools and Early Years Design, International The Best School in the World, Seven Finnish Examples from the 21st Century (Museum of Finnish Architecture, 2011) Contemporary Educational Facilities (Links International, 2013) Contemporary School Architecture in Slovenia 1991-2007 (Springer, 2008) Designing the Sustainable School (Images Publishing Group, 2007) Evidence-Based Design of Elementary and Secondary Schools: A Responsive Approach to Creating Learning Environments (Wiley, 2010) Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education (Wiley, 2011) New School (Design Media Publishing Limited, 2012) School (Reaktion Books, 2008) School Builders (Wiley-Academy, 2003) School Buildings (Design Media Publishing Limited, 2013)

School Buildings: Construction & Design Manual (DOM, 2014) Schools: Educational Spaces (Braun, 2009) Schools Innovation & Design (Links International 2014) Sustainable School Architecture: Design for Elementary and Secondary Schools (Wiley, 2010) The Third Teacher (Harry N Abrams, 2010)

Landscape and the External Environment A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning (National Foundation for Educational Research/Kings College London, 2004) Childhood and Nature: A Survey on Changing Relationships with Nature Across Generations (England Marketing/Natural England 2009) Children in the Outdoors: A Literature Review (Sustainable Development Research Centre, 2009) Curriculum for Excellence Through Outdoor Learning (Learning & Teaching Scotland, 2010) Engaging and Learning with the Outdoors: The Final Report of the Outdoor Classroom in a Rural Context Action Research Project (National Foundation for Educational Research, 2005) Every Child Outdoors (RSPB, 2010) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder (Atlantic Books, 2010) Learning Outside the Classroom: How Far Should You Go? (Ofsted, 2008) Out-of-Classroom Learning: Practical Information and Guidance for Schools and Teachers (RSPB, 2006) The Outdoor Classroom ages 3 – 7: Using Ideas from Forest Schools to Enrich Learning (Routledge, 2012)

167 Further Reading and Resources

FURTHER READING AND RESOURCES

168 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

DESIGNER CREDITS

IMAGE CREDITS

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris: 53, 66, 78-9 AHR: 89, 162-3 Archiall NORR: 42 ArchitecturePLB: Front Cover, 54, 56, 97, 60-1, 85-6, 109 Atkins: vi, 80-1 Avanti Architects: 57 BDP: 127, 142-3 Bond Bryan Architects: 62-3 Cazenove Architects: 106, 117 Contents Design: 138-9 Cottrell & Vermeulen Architecture: 34-5 Curl La Tourelle: v, 98-9 Cwmclydach Primary School: 36-7 dRMM: 1, 14-5 DSDHA: ii, 146 FaulknerBrowns Architects: 154-5 FCB Studios: vi, 82-3 Grounds for Learning (Learning Through Landscapes): 102-3 Gumuchdjian Architects: 105, 114, Back Cover Hampshire County Architects: 16-7 Haverstock: vi, 145, 158-9 Hawkins\Brown: 59, 111 Hayhurst and Co: 109 Henley Halebrown Rorrison: 114 HOK: 140-1 Hopkins Architects: vi, 120-1 Jestico + Whiles: 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77 jmarchitects: 122-3 John McAslan Partnership: 100-1 LHC: 117 Nicholas Hare Architects: vi, 38, 45 Nightingale Architects (IBI Group): 94 Penoyre & Prasad: xx-i, 51 Plincke: 86, 89, 94, 97 Ryder Architecture: 156-7 Scott Brownrigg: 124-5 Spacezero: vi, 127, 130, 142-3 Sheppard Robson: 41, 64-5, 132, 137 Studio E Architects: 136 Surface to Air Architects: xvi, 21-2, 27, 30, 32 Walters & Cohen Architects: vi, 18-9 Warren Benbow Architects: 128 WilkinsonEyre Architects: 47

Gavin Ambrose (after Plincke): 90 Andrew Haslam Photography: 101 (both), 136 Andrew Hendry Photographer: 124–125 Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Library Photographs Collection: 5, 8 (both), 9 (both) ArchitecturePLB: xi, 61 (left) Atkins: 81 (left) Nigel Barker, HCC: 17 (both) Dean Benbow: 128 Bond Bryan Architects: 62–63 Richard Brine: vi (labelled ‘120’), 120–121 (left, centre) James Brittain/ Wilkinson Eyre: 47 Alan Copper, HCC: 16 Cottrell & Vermeulen: 34 Tim Crocker: vi (labelled ‘38’), 38–39, 59, 68, 70, 76–77 Tim Crocker, reproduced by permission of Hawkins\Brown: 111 Tom Cronin: 35 (both) Cwmlydach Primary School: 37 (all) Dell & Wainwright / RIBA Library Photographs Collection: 6 (both) Sarah Drake, Penoyre & Prasad LLP: xx–xxi, 51 Peter Durant/ NHA: 45 FaulknerBrowns Architects: 155 (bottom) Thomas de Gay/ Avanti: 57 Dennis Gilbert / VIEW: ii, vi (labelled ‘18’ and ‘158’), 18–19, 146, 158, 159 (left) Grounds for Learning (Learning Through Landscapes): 102–103 HOK International Ltd.: 140–141 Henley Halebrown Rorrison/David Grandorge (photographer): 114 (bottom) Haverstock: 159 (right) Andrew Holt:72 Daniel Hopkinson / AHR: 89 (bottom) Hufton + Crow: 41, 64–65 Jestico + Whiles: 74 (both) Simon Kennedy:121 (right) Kristen McCluskie Photography: 138–139, 157 (both) LHC Architecture/Morley Von Sternberg: 117 (top) Tom Lee: 56 Jonas Lencer: 1, 14, 15 (both) LOOP.bz: 2 Lourdas Photography Ltd: Front cover, 60,

61 (right) David Millington: vi (labelled ‘80’), 80, 81 (right) Kilian O’Sullivan/ www.kilianosullivan. co.uk: v, 98–99, 109 (top) Paul Groom Photography: 135 Plincke: 89 (top), 94, 96–97, 100 Sanjay Prasad, Interiography: 132 (bottom), 137 Chris Pugh/ FaulknerBrowns Architects: 154 Richard Mills Photography: vi (labelled ‘142’), 127, 142–143 Nick Rochowski: 106, 117 (bottom) Ryder Architects: 156 Clive Sherlock: 122–123 Timothy Soar: vi (labelled ‘82’), 53–54, 67, 78–79, 82–83, 85–86 Spacezero: 130, 132 (top) Jim Stephenson: xvi, 21–22, 27, 30, 32 Morley von Sternberg: 42, 105, 114 (top) Taran Wilkhu Photography: 133 Wayne Taylor, Spacezero: 132 (top) Simon Warren: 109 (bottom) Ian Wilson/ FaulknerBrowns Architects: 155 (top) Sharon Wright: x, 26

Note: page numbers in italics refer to figures academies (in general) 12, 44 acoustic considerations 52, 155, 164 adapting existing buildings 105–25, 152 adjacency 39, 88, 90, 100 age-specific learning areas 35, 39, 46, 91, 91–2, 100 AHR 89 all age schools 3, 12, 53 Allford Hall Monaghan Morris 53, 78–9 Archial NORR 42 architect’s role 71, 76, 115–16, 119 ArchitecturePLB 54, 56, 60–1, 86, 97, 109 area allowances 12, 108, 166 Arkitema Architects, 2 Ashperton Primary Academy, Herefordshire 128 assembly spaces 39, 48, 68, 75, 109, 114 Atkins 80–1 Avanti Architects 57 balconies 56, 79 Barnfield West Academy, Luton 54 Baseline Designs 43, 57, 161, 166 Basic Needs funding 12 BDP 142–3 Boarding Schools National Minimum Standards 2013 164 Bond Bryan Architects 62–3 Bonhill Primary School, Bonhill, Argyll and Bute 156–7 BREEAM 11 bridges 47, 83, 99 briefing issues 24–5 (see also design issues) Building Bulletins 164, 165, 166 building footprints 49–50 (see also building typologies) building height 50 building information management (BIM) 136 building layouts see building typologies building management and maintenance 152 building materials 73, 75–6, 96–7 building orientation 52, 95 Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF) 10, 70, 71, 88, 93 building surveys 113 building typologies 52–7 campus models 52–4 capital funding 10, 12, 166 car drop-off 95

car parking 95–6 Cazenove Architects 106, 117 central ‘heart’ spaces 39, 65, 71–2, 72, 73, 75 changing requirements 153 Charles Dickens Primary School, Southwark, London 138–9 Chobham Academy, Newham 53 Christ’s College in Guildford 146 circulation 55, 56, 75, 77, 121 cladding materials 75–6 Clapham Manor Primary School, Lambeth, London 14–15 client brief 21–39, 71–2 client engagement 26, 71–2, 73 colour use 77 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) 11 Commonweal Sixth Form, Swindon 135 communication 151 (see also client engagement) community use 44, 46, 61, 92, 96, 101 component-based solutions 62–3 configurations see building typologies consulting staff and students 32–3 Contents Design 138–9 cost effectiveness 113, 115 Cottrell & Vermeulen Architecture Client: 34–5 courtyard models 17, 54–5, 83, 156 Creates Hubs 141 cross-curricular activity 57, 100 Curl La Tourelle Architects 98–9 curriculum groupings 45 curriculum provision 90–1, 93 Cwmclydach Primary School, Clydach Vale, Rhondda Valley 36 36–7 cycle storage 95 Darwen Vale High School, Darwen, Lancashire 100–1 daylighting see natural lighting decor 29, 77, 133–4, 142 Design Council review 2005 11 design for change 155 Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) 80, 81 design guidance 165 design issues 44–52 educational 44–6 physical 49–52 social 47–9 design performance 11–12, 33 design process 26–8, 71–6 design quality indicators 11, 90, 115, 119 design requirements 164–5 design stages 115–16 design standards 164–5 design team 150, 151 design test rooms 31–2, 36

design user groups (DUG) 31 desking 7, 131 dining areas 48, 57, 75, 91 direct funding 44 diversity of schools 43–4, 44, 45–6 drivers for change 148 dRMM 14–15 early years 91–2, 164 ecology 94 Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010/14 164 Education (Schools) Act 1992 10 education consultants 28 education design brief (EDB) 24–5 Education Funding Agency (EFA) 12, 166 Baseline Designs 43, 57, 161, 166 Education Reform Act 1988 9, 44 educational context 44 educational performance 11–12, 33, 69 Elm Court School, Lambeth, London 122–3 entrepreneurial spaces 141 environmental control 151–2 Ercall Wood Technology College, Wellington, Shropshire 154–5 ethos of school 44, 52 examination areas 46, 114 exemplars 28, 71 existing buildings 105–25, 152 extended use see community use extensions 51, 105–25, 110 external drivers 148 external furniture 97 external learning see outdoor learning external noise 52 external spaces see outdoor environments facades 15, 71, 75–6, 78, 79 facilities output specification (FOS) 164–5 Facilities Output Specifications 43 faith rooms 49 FaulknerBrowns Architects Client: 154–5 FCB Studios 82–3 Fir Vale & Watermead Primary Schools, Sheffield 62–3 fittings, furniture and equipment (FFE) 127–43 flexible spaces 31, 46, 132, 152, 155–6, 157, 161 Forest Park School, Totton, Hampshire 16–17 ‘forest’ schools 80–1, 99 free schools 12, 44 funding 10, 12, 166 furniture 37, 127–43 (see also desking)

gardens 81, 90, 91, 97, 101, 157 Gateacre School, Belle Vale, Liverpool 142–3 Gloucester Academy, Gloucestershire 38–9 Goose Green Primary School, Southwark 106, 117 Gove, Michael 12 government policy 12, 43, 44 gradient of site 51 grant-maintained status 9 graphic design 77 Grounds for Learning 102–3 group-based learning 45, 100, 123, 150 Gumuchdjian Architects 114 Hampshire County Architects Department 10, 16–17 Happyhansel Primary School, Walls, Shetland 102–3 Haverstock 158–9 Hawkins|Brown 111 Hayes Primary School, Croydon 109 Hayhurst and Co 109 headteacher’s role 26, 28–9, 33 health and safety regulations 164 Hellerup School, Copenhagen 2 Henley Halebrown Rorrison 114 Henrietta Barnett School, Hampstead Garden Suburb, London 120–1 Hilden Grange Preparatory School, Tonbridge 111 Hillview School for Girls, Tonbridge, Kent 124–5 historical perspective 4–13 HOK 140–1 Hopkins Architects 120–1 house logos 77 house structure 71 hub and spokes models 55, 61, 72, 73–5, 155 independent schools 43 indoor comfort 63, 151 informal and social areas see social settings information and communications technology (ICT) 25, 36 interior design 127–43 (see also decor) internal streets 55, 159 Isaac Newton Academy, Ilford, London 82–3 James Review of Education Capital 2011 43 JCB Academy 117 Jestico + Whiles 67–77 jmarchitects 122–3 Jo Richardson Community School, Dagenham 56 John Madejski Academy, Reading 47

169 Index

INDEX

170 Future Schools: Innovative Design for Existing and New Buildings

John McAslan Partnership 100–1 Kensington Creates, Kensington Aldridge Academy, London 140–1 key stage learning areas 46, 47, 63, 83 landscape masterplan 95 landscaping 88–90, 94, 97, 101 (see also gardens) Le Murier School, Guernsey 97 leadership 150 learning performance 11–12, 33, 69 learning styles 96 legacy furniture 135–6 legislation 164 LHC Architecture 117 Lime Tree Primary School, Sale, Manchester 80–1 Liverpool Schools Model 64 lockers 49 long-term thinking 145–59 LOOP. bz 2 masterplans 15, 73, 93, 94, 95, 149, 151 materials see building materials Michael Faraday Community School, Southwark 42 modular assembly 80, 81 multifunction spaces 39, 55, 118, 152, 159 multi-storey buildings 15, 18, 50, 51, 56, 57, 61, 79, 83, 99, 100, 142, 155

parking areas 82, 95–6 participative design see client engagement partnering contracts 76 Partnerships for Schools (PfS) 10 Passmores Academy, Harlow 67–77 pastoral arrangements 46, 47, 48, 71, 83 pavilions 43, 45, 47, 65, 81, 125 pedagogical styles 44, 45, 96 Penoyre & Prasad 51 performance measures 11–12, 33 performance spaces 48, 82, 83, 101, 109, 114 perimeter security 52 phased development 51, 121, 149 physical context 49–52, 75, 79 planning for change 28–32, 149–53 play areas 91, 99 playing fields see sports accommodation Plincke 86, 89, 94, 97 prefabrication 8 (see also modular assembly) Primary Capital Programme (PCP) 10 Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP) 12, 43, 164–5 Priory School, Upper Norwood, London 98–9 project costs 113, 115, 118 project leaders 150 project team 27–8 project-based learning 30–1, 150 pupil performance see learning performance

national curriculum 44 natural environment 94 natural lighting 56–7, 63, 75, 79 natural ventilation 57, 75 needs assessment 110–11 New Labour 2005-10 10–11 Nicholas Hare Architects 38–9, 45 Nightingale Architects (IBI Group) 94 noise infiltration 52, 155 Notre Dame Catholic College, Everton, Liverpool 64–5 Notre Dame RC Secondary School, Southwark, London 28–9, 34–5 nursery and reception spaces 46, 63, 91–2

radial plans see hub and spokes models refurbishment 105–25 regulations 164–5 Residential Special Schools National Minimum Standards 2013 164 Rimon Jewish Primary School, Barnet 133 roof spaces 50, 51, 83, 99, 111, 114 room sizes 116, 152 Royal Greenwich University Technical College, London 18–19 Ryder Architecture 156–7

Ofsted 10 open-plan spaces 56–7, 65 (see also hub and spokes models) orientation of site see building orientation outdoor environments 85–103, 88, 156 outdoor learning 80–1, 90–1, 92–3, 99, 101 out-of-hours use 46, 49, 61 (see also community use) outside spaces see outdoor environments

Safe Routes to School 95 Salford University study 2012 11 sample classrooms and equipment 134 sanitary facilities 49, 75, 76 school grounds see outdoor environments school inspections 10 School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 164 school specific design brief (SSDB) 24 Schools for the Future Series 165

‘schools within a school’ 44, 83, 159 Scott Brownrigg 124–5 security considerations 52, 92, 95 sense of place 95 service connections 52, 155 Sheffield UTC 130 Sheppard Robson 64–5, 132, 137 Shoreham Academy, Shoreham-bySea, West Sussex 60–1 site access 49, 95, 99 site areas 49–50 site characteristics 50–1, 73, 94–5 site planning diagrams 90 site security 52, 95 site-wide surveys 112–13 sixth forms 46, 48 ‘sky walk’ bridges 99 Smarte East 70 social context 47–9, 72–3 social settings 48, 49, 88, 89, 90, 91–2, 96 software for space planning 131 space planning 127–43 Spacezero 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137 spatial layouts see building typologies special educational needs (SEN) 12, 16, 43, 44, 46, 166 specialisms 45 (see also technology specialism) specialist status 44 Sport England publications 165 sports accommodation 51, 83, 92, 95 St. Ambrose Barlow RC High School 89, 132, 137 St. Benedict’s School, Ealing 114 St. Marylebone School, Westminster 114 St. Marys Catholic College, Blackpool 94 St. Matthew Academy, Lewisham 86 staff participation 31–2, 71 staff work and social areas 46, 49, 149–50 stakeholders 32–3 standard specifications 11 Standard Specifications, Layouts and Dimensions Series (SSLDs) 165 standardised designs 12, 43, 161 standards 164 Standards for School Premises 2013 164 Stanley Park High, Carshalton, London 158–9 Stationers’ Crown Woods Academy in Greenwich 45 Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage 2012 164 storage walls 134 street and fingers models 55 Studio E Architects 136 studio schools 44 studio spaces 159 superblock model 56–7

surveys 94, 112–13 sustainable design 73, 79, 94 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) 94 teaching lecterns 131 teaching spaces 45–6 teaching styles 44, 52, 96 technology specialism 18–19, 71, 72, 154–5 thermal comfort 63, 151 Thomas Fairchild Community School, Hackney 57 threshold spaces 92, 100 (see also site access) Tottenham UTC 22, 27, 30, 32 travel plans 95 typologies, building 52–7 UCL Academy, Camden 51 university technical colleges 18, 29–30, 44 urban versus rural sites 50 UTC Cambridge 59 utilities 52 value 115 visits to other schools 28, 71 Walters & Cohen Architects 18–19 Walthamstow School for Girls, Waltham Forest 109 Warren Benbow Architects. 128 Westminster Academy, London 78–9 WilkinsonEyre Architects 47 Witton Park Academy, Blackburn 136 workspaces 141 year 7 zones 35, 39, 46, 91, 100