Sustainable schools and importance of internal environment design · 2016-05-08 · 0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology i Sustainable schools and importance of internal environment

0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology i

Sustainable schools and importance of internal environment design

Are stakeholders delivering for tomorrow’s generation?

May 2015

0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology ii

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the long-standing and much known issues impacting the internal

environments and sustainability of schools in the UK, examining also the influence and

decision-making of stakeholders throughout the life of schools.

Developing from the research proposal, the literature review provides a foundation for the

dissertation to develop; the method identified in Chapter 4 highlights the approach chosen. The

literature review highlights some wider issues, and the case studies consider literature

researched to provide specific information, aiding problem identification and highlighting issues

particular schools face.

Both the literature review and the case studies highlight that much is known of the issues, but

that collectively stakeholders are not working collaboratively enough to improve outcomes

sufficiently. The case studied schools highlight the differences in management and impact of

the issues, but also that monitoring of issues is limited, asking questions of stakeholder’s

decision-making over time.

There is a disconnect between stakeholders, evident most once buildings go into operation,

internal environments require better management, monitoring and assessment. Buildings

become stressed by poor decisions of stakeholders collectively, influenced possibly by

educational trends. Considering climate change and growing pupil demand for places, the

sustainability of schools needs a radical solution to resolve issues that will not come from

yesterday’s philosophies, but will largely require existing school buildings being improved.

0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology iii

Contents

Declaration iii Acknowledgements v Abstract vii List of Figures and Tables ix Chapter 1 – Introduction 1

1.1 – Rationale 1 1.2 – Aim 2 1.3 – Objectives 2 1.4 – Hypothesis 2

Chapter 2 – Literature Review 3

2.1 – Chapter Overview 3 2.2 – Activities associated with satisfying the objectives 3 2.3 – Dissertation context 4 2.4 – Stakeholders who may be interested in the research 5 2.5 – Literature review 6

2.5.1 – Regulations and guidance of school buildings 9 2.5.2 – Building Bulletins 10 2.5.3 – Building Bulletin 101 ‘ Ventilation in School Buildings’ (BB101) 12 2.5.4 – Indoor air quality (IAQ) 12 2.5.5 – Thermal comfort 14 2.5.6 – Lighting (natural and artificial) 15 2.5.7 – Acoustics 16 2.5.8 – Space and layout 18 2.5.9 – Sustainable schools 22

Chapter 3 – Ethics 24

3.1 – Statement of ethics 24 Chapter 4 – Methodology 25

4.1 – Chapter overview 25 4.2 – Data collection 25 4.3 – Case studies 25 4.4 – Questionnaires and interviews 26 4.5 – Data analysis and case study findings 26 4.6 – Discussion and Conclusion 26 4.7 – Limitations of this research 26

Chapter 5 – Case studies 28

5.1 – Chapter overview 28 5.2 – Bosmere Community Primary School, Suffolk 29

5.2.1 – Background information 30 5.3 – Needham Market Middle School, Suffolk 31

5.3.1 – Background information 32

Chapter 6 – Analysis and findings of case studies 33

6.1 – Chapter Overview 33 6.2 – Bosmere Community Primary School, size and growth 33

6.2.1 – School design 34 6.2.2 – Site context, access and layout 35 6.2.3 – Building construction 36 6.2.4 – Temperature and humidity monitoring of school 40 6.2.5 – Natural and artificial lighting 41 6.2.6 – Acoustics 42 6.2.7 – Size, space and storage 43 6.2.8 – Maintenance and sustainability issues 45

6.3 – Needham Market Middle School, size and growth 46 6.3.1 – School design 47 6.3.2 – Site context, access and layout 48 6.3.3 – Building construction 49 6.3.4 – Natural and artificial lighting 50 6.3.5 – Acoustics 51 6.3.6 – Size space and storage 52 6.3.7 – Maintenance and sustainability issues 54

Chapter 7 – Discussion and Conclusion 55 7.1 – Chapter overview 55 7.2 – Aim of dissertation 55 7.3 – Objective 1 55 7.4 – Objective 2 55 7.5 – Objective 3 56 7.6 – Hypothesis 56 7.7 – Overall Conclusion 57

Chapter 8 – Recommendations 58 8.1 – Chapter overview 58 8.2 – Recommendations from conclusions 58 8.3 – Recommendations for further research 59

Chapter 9 – Reflections 60 References 61 Bibliography 63 Appendices 66

Appendix 1 – Tutorial progress sheets 67 Appendix 2 – Ethics information 69 Appendix 3 – Author review of BB101 77 Appendix 4 – Valuation information from case studies 89 Appendix 5 – Recommendation Proposal 90

0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology iv

List of Figures Fig. 1 – Aim, Objectives & Hypothesis 2 Fig. 2 – Objectives and their associated tasks 3 Fig. 3 – Expected increase in pupil numbers in England to 2023 4 Fig. 4 – School stakeholders considered within scope of dissertation 5 Fig. 5 – Dissertation focus considerations 6 Fig. 6 – Requirements and guidance relevant to school building projects 9 Fig. 7 – Relationship between Building Bulletins that impact internal environment 10 Fig. 8 – Impact of poor quality on classrooms 13 Fig. 9 – Bexley Business Academy issues 16 Fig. 10 – Gateway to the World 18 Fig. 11 – Internal spaces, Gateway to the World 19 Fig. 12 – St Lukes and Oakmeadow Primary Schools 20 Fig. 13 – G/F layout Oakmeadow, similarities with German ‘Gateway to the World’ 20 Fig. 14 – Internal environment, Oakmeadow 21 Fig. 15 – Research process cycle of this dissertation 25 Fig. 16 – Bosmere Community Primary and Needham Market Middles Schools 27 Fig. 17 – BCPS photograph 28 Fig. 18 – BCPS playing field 28 Fig. 19 – Former school 29 Fig. 20 – Council school 29 Fig. 21 – Map highlighting history of Bosmere Primary School and location 29 Fig. 22 – NMMS playing field 30 Fig. 23 – School and playground 30 Fig. 24 – Bomb damage 31 Fig. 25 – Site plan of extensive 1970’s extension 31 Fig. 26 – Bosmere size and capacity breakdown 32 Fig. 27 – Site considerations 34 Fig. 28 – Children’s Centre 34 Fig. 29 – Traffic issues outside school 34 Fig. 30 – Typical wall u-values 35 Fig. 31 – Fabric heat losses 35 Fig. 32 – Loft space 35 Fig. 33 – Poor gutter design 35 Fig. 34 – Solar panels 35 Fig. 35 – Storing and releasing of thermal mass 36 Fig. 36 – Night time cooling 36 Fig. 37 – Insulation and thermal mass 36 Fig. 38 – School intermittent use 36 Fig. 39 – Window type and condition 37 Fig. 40 – U-values of glazing types 37 Fig. 41 – Heat/ cold transfer through glazing 37 Fig. 42 – Side only ventilation 37 Fig. 43 – Classroom windows 37 Fig. 44 – Clorestory windows 37 Fig. 45 – High level radiator 38 Fig. 46 – Main hall heater 38 Fig. 47 – No control of thermostat 38 Fig. 48 – Ideal humidity 38 Fig. 49 – ICT suite, lights on/ lights off 40 Fig. 50 – Blinds shut/ lights on 40 Fig. 51 – Glare on whitescreens 40 Fig. 52 – Blinds and classroom displays 40 Fig. 53 – Interconnecting doors 41 Fig. 54 – Staff workstations 42 Fig. 55 – Lack of storage and poor desk placement 42 Fig. 56 – Breakfast club equipment 42 Fig. 57 – P.E. & music equipment in classroom 42 Fig. 58 – Workstations and class admin/ files 42 Fig. 59 – Main hall small and reverberant 42 Fig. 60 – Kitchen considered too small 43 Fig. 61 – Heater covered and impact on hall space 43 Fig. 62 – Hall storage small & inefficiently managed 43 Fig. 63 – Ground level height 44 Fig. 64 – View from nursery 44 Fig. 65 – Impact of rainwater 44 Fig. 66 – Impact from Fig. 65 44 Fig. 67 – Nursery office 44 Fig. 68 – Broken ceiling fan 44 Fig. 69 – Debris from trees 44 Fig. 70 – Proximity to tree issues 44 Fig. 71 – NMMS size and capacity breakdown 45 Fig. 72 – Site considerations 46 Fig. 73 – Central located site and relationships with town 46 Fig. 74 – Window walls 47 Fig. 75 – Large flat roofs 47 Fig. 76 – Pitched roof of extended music room 47 Fig. 77 – NW corner classroom 47 Fig. 78 – South facing classroom 47 Fig. 79 – Temporary boiler location and basement 48 Fig. 80 – A/C & extract fan 48 Fig. 81 – Occupant control of heating, un-informative thermostat 48 Fig. 82 – Placement of heating 48 Fig. 83 – Sun pipes & rooflights 49 Fig. 84 – Natural light but with lights on 49 Fig. 85 – Naturally light corridors 49

Fig. 86 – Impact of large windows 49 Fig. 87 – Ceiling modification to music room 50 Fig. 88 – Smaller booth in music room 50 Fig. 89 – Acoustic treatment in corridors 50 Fig. 90 – Acoustic treatment in science labs 50 Fig. 91 – New ceiling grid installed with lights 50 Fig. 92 – Over 55’s complex adjacent to school 50 Fig. 93 – School kitchen & main hall 51 Fig. 94 – Breakout areas & courtyards 51 Fig. 95 – Coat areas & corridors 51 Fig. 96 – Workstations & ipad storage 51 Fig. 97 – Extensive ICT suite areas 51 Fig. 98 – Food Technology & Library 51 Fig. 99 – 1970’s kitchen extension 52 Fig. 100 – Former kitchen 52 Fig. 101 – 1970’s extension layout 52 Fig. 102 – Original design with larger courtyard 52 Fig. 103 – Classroom walls moved 52 Fig. 104 – Significant areas of single glazing 53 Fig. 105 – Ceiling tired in areas 53 Fig. 106 – Boiler requires permanent location 53 Fig. 107 – Elements of heating require upgrading 53 Fig. 108 – Courtyards require maintenance 53 Fig. 109 – Maintenance and sustainability issues 53

List of Tables Table 1 – Human benefits of sustainable schools 23 Table 2 – Size and growth 32 Table 3 – Comparable schools 32 Table 4 – Site context, access & layout of Primary School 34 Table 5 – Building construction: Walls and Roof 35 Table 6 – Building construction: Thermal mass 36 Table 7 – Building construction: Windows 37 Table 8 – Building Construction: Heating & ventilation 38 Table 9 – Temperature and humidity monitoring of school 39 Table 10 – Temperature and humidity monitoring summary 39 Table 11 – Lighting (Natural & artificial) 40 Table 12 – Acoustics 41 Table 13 – Size, space and storage 42 Table 14 – Maintenance and sustainability issues 44 Table 15 – Size and growth of Middle School 45 Table 16 – Site context, access & layout 46 Table 17 – Building construction: Walls, Roof and Windows 47 Table 18 – Heating & ventilation 48 Table 19 – Lighting (natural & artificial) 49 Table 20 – Acoustics 50 Table 21 – Size, space & storage 51 Table 22 – Maintenance & sustainability issues 53

0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology 1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 – Rationale This dissertation has developed from an interest in school design generally, and comes with

multiple viewpoints. As a parent and governor on two governing bodies observing current

experiences of children; with construction experience of school projects particularly over last 10

years, and most recently architecturally through academic research. Collectively the aim is to

objectively consider all viewpoints to gain further understanding and deliver this dissertation

‘Sustainable schools and the importance of Internal environment design’ and consider if

stakeholders are delivering for tomorrow’s generation?

“Schools and their buildings have enormous responsibility, enjoying a special status and

entrusted with the care of children within their communities” (Gelfand, 2010), but are influenced

by a range of stakeholders with different viewpoints and perspectives. From design and

construction, to maintaining and learning in them, a diverse range of stakeholders collectively

impacts these complex environments and those working in them. With so many interests and

viewpoints comes great inefficiency, individually each takes a little piece devaluing the overall

effectiveness of what they collectively want to achieve.

“Four times more densely occupied than offices” (US EPA, 2012)

“Relative to their bodyweight, children breathe more air, consume more food and

drink more water than adults” (WHO, 2003).

Despite these kinds of statements and research highlighting the issues, why are so many

schools failing to provide better internal environments? Within the literature review some of the

issues faced are highlighted, identifying stakeholders responsible brings questions of their role,

priorities and agenda. But it is with the case studies that this dissertation gains tangibility,

supporting the literature review both provide insight into the issues faced in schools, highlighting

what appear common issues in the UK.

The amount of case studies possibly limits scope, but the comprehensiveness of the two case

studies helps deliver robust assessment of the influencing stakeholders, allowing for

assumptions of the issues schools face generally in the UK, and have done so for a long time.

Individually they offer opportunity to consider both their internal environments and sustainability,

together to consider impact to the wider community, and highlight influences of stakeholders.


Objective 2 Provide insight in to the

perceptions and understanding

stakeholders have on ensuring schools deliver healthy environments for children and staff to learn

and work in.

Aim Establish and understand how the sustainability and internal environments of

school buildings are impacted upon by

stakeholders.

Objective 3 Identify and examine how

internal environment of schools impact on health

and well-being of all occupants, their

performance, the building itself and the environment.

Hypothesis Meaningful research into the sustainability

and internal environments of schools is compromised by all stakeholders, who

collectively fail to work collaboratively in bringing meaningful change, to the detriment

of all school occupants.

Objective 1 Establish influencing

factors impacting internal environments of school

buildings, highlighting roles and responsibilities of

stakeholders in delivering sustainable schools.

1.4 – Hypothesis

1.3 – Objectives

1.2 – Aim

Fig. 1: Aim, Objectives & Hypothesis

The aim of this dissertation (Fig. 1.2) is to establish stakeholder influence, through developing

the objectives (Fig. 1.3) and testing hypothesis (Fig.1.4). It considers the wider issues through

literature reviewed and case studies, challenging the hypothesis arriving at the conclusion that

all stakeholders need to collaboratively improve on what is currently being delivered.


Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 – Chapter Overview The literature review highlights the current situation schools face, the sustainability of them and

the impact the internal environments have on occupants. It provides the foundation for

developing the case studies that follow in chapter 6, providing a correlation between the

findings of each.

2.2 – Activities associated with satisfying the objectives To ensure relevancy within the literature review and research according to the methodology set

out in Chapter 4, activities have been identified to help further evidence successful realisation of

the objectives.

•  Collate information from a range of sources and viewpoints. Specifically regulations & guidance, IAQ, sustainability, lighting, acoustics, thermal comfort, space and layout of schools.

•  Identify stakeholders and their involvement.

Objective 1 Establish influencing

factors impacting internal environments of school

buildings, highlighting roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in delivering

sustainable schools.

•  Identify how stakeholders impact on the internal environment of schools and their sustainability currently and the for the future.

•  Highlight how stakeholders influence activities set out in the 1st objective.

Objective 2 To provide insight into the

perceptions and understanding

stakeholders have on ensuring schools deliver healthy environments for children and staff to learn

and work in.

•  Conduct case studies that support the findings of the literature review within the first objectives activities, and develop further understanding of the 2nd objectives activities.

•  Combine case studies and literature review to inform findings, conclusions and discussions.

Objective 3 Identify how internal

environment of schools impact on health and well-

being of all occupants, their performance, the building itself and the

environment.

Fig. 2: Objectives and their associated activities


2.3 – Dissertation context This dissertation comes during a period of austerity in the UK, with further public sector cuts

expected, and a general election imminent. Education has not escaped, the coalition

government stopped The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. Independent free

schools and academies continue to develop, directly funded from central government.

Woolner (2015, p.78) states also that due to capital funding constraints future building project

budgets have been reduced by 30%, worryingly she highlights also that non-teaching spaces,

such as dining halls, etc. have been cut by 15% in size. The Priority School Building

Programme (PSBP) began in 2014, identifying 261 schools in most need of repair (Department

of Education, 2015).

The landscape of education is changing in the UK, with a need to accommodate a diverse

range of learning communities, but also there is a need to fund a growing population. The BBC

(2015) refers to the Local Government Association (LGA) stating “an extra 880,000 children by

2023 potentially need funding for places in education are needed” (Fig. 3). Considering current

and future issues, the challenge grows everyday that inaction continues, the need for far

reaching, meaningful and radical action is arriving out of necessity. In order to not create

another set of problems for our society and our own sustainbility, the health and well-being of

our children should be given the utmost priority.

Fig. 3: Expected increase in pupil numbers in England to 2023 (BBC, 2015).


2.4 – Stakeholders who may be interested in the research Key stakeholders (Fig. 4) identified may be interested in this research, and who influence how

school buildings operate. Not an exhaustive list and only some will be considered to satisfy

activities and meet the objectives (Fig. 2), and help assess impact on schools and each other.

Fig. 4: School Stakeholders considered within scope of dissertation

School Stakeholders

Government (Central & Local)

Enforcement LEA's & HSE,

Emergency Services

Schools Headteachers,

teachers, staff & Governors

Professional Bodies

RIBA, CIAT, CIBSE, RICS, BRE, etc.

Commercial Designers,

Contractors & Manufacturers

Children Parents & families

Others Academics, Universities,

Colleges, etc.


2.5 – Literature review Naoum, (1998) and Greetham, (2014) have helped provide clarity in regards to researching

efficiently and methodically. Both essential for determining the methodology and direction of

the dissertation, helping develop and refine the aim, objectives and approach to test the

hypothesis (Fig. 1).

Negotiating the sheer volume of information regarding schools a rationalisation of sources was

required, ensuring both focus and relevancy was maintained. Health and Productivity Benefits

of Sustainable Schools: A Review, BRE trust, (2010) provides concise information helping

identify contributory factors influencing internal environments of schools. (Fig. 5) highlights both

its contents and ideas developed from activities (Fig. 2) and realisation of the objectives.

Fig. 5: Dissertation focus considerations

• Provide overview identifying relevant documents to schools and their internal environments.

Regulations & Guidance for School Buildings

• Identify contributing factors that impact IAQ, and outline relationship other highlighted factors. Indoor Air Quality

• Set out how thermal comfort is perceived, also how temperature and humidity, etc. impact on occupants. Thermal Comfort

• Included within scope will be natural daylight, consider how light influences internal environment. Lighting

• Explore how noise both from outside and within influences the internal environment and occupants. Acoustics

• Consider how both influence and impact on occupants and the impact of complexities in design. Space and Layout

• Consider schools not just in isolation but also beyond their boundaries to assess their impact. Sustainable Schools

(Fig. 5) provides focus for achieving the aim, objectives, work through the activities (Fig. 1) and

test the hypothesis. This provides understanding of stakeholder influence, particularly central

government in its policy making, LEA’s and schools in how they apply and understand them,

designers, contractors and manufacturers to comply with them in procurement, and occupants

who have to operate in them.


School Design Together by Pamela Woolner, has been pivotal in the development of this

dissertation, written with co-authors from both the architectural and education viewpoint.

Immediate connection with this book has proved invaluable for developing thinking, and testing

of the arguments within this dissertation. Woolner (2015, p.1-2) highlights that considerable

research has been undertaken without necessarily providing satisfactory solutions, highlighting

that some recommendations from research conflict. From research Woolner (2015, p.145)

provides an overview of responses from primary school users, which aids the process of

identification issues moving forward with case studies.

• Classrooms overheat, especially in summer, due to poor solar control, and an

inability to ventilate spaces. The windows and vents may not be sufficient, or the

control of devices maybe lacking. If doors are propped open as a form of safety

valve, this may present a fire and safety hazard. Tell-tale signs: Controls fall into

disuse, doors propped open, warning signs attached to windows. Fans may be

introduced by the occupants. In winter, teachers bring in local fan heaters.

• Classrooms have too much glare from sun and sky particularly from south-facing

windows, usually linked to cheap and inappropriate solar control blinds. Tell-tale

signs: Rudimentary screening of windows, or school work on windows, or blinds

down and lights on most of the time.

• Pupils cannot see the whiteboard. Tell-tale signs: Retrofitted window blinds, which

can interfere with ventilation. Tendency for blinds to remain down, with lights on.

• Unwanted noise. Some say this is an occupational hazard in schools but can be

made worse by design or educational whims. Tell –tale signs: Classrooms with no

doors, and complaints from teachers when their opinions are polled.

• Lack of storage, in classrooms, offices, kitchens and halls. Most evident in buildings

with circular or triangular shapes, which create odd or inaccessible spaces, usually

wasted. Tell-tale signs: Lockers intruding into corridors and circulation areas. Lorry

container in playground used for overflow equipment, especially furniture in halls.


• Lack of meeting room space. Tell-tale signs: Rooms in multiple use, but not as

designers intended. For example, main use is meeting room, but also has a washing

machine and printer equipment.

• Insecure classrooms. Tell-tale signs: ICT equipment trolleys which have to be moved

to a secure bay or cupboard at the end of every lesson. Revenge effect: cupboard

ends up with mechanical cooling to protect computer equipment. (Usually

unnecessary, but a decision driven by the schools’s ICT department which is more

interested in protecting its equipment than meeting energy efficiency targets.)

• Controls and switches difficult to understand. Tell-tale signs (literally!): Ignored

controls, but handwritten notices and instructions giving users a work-around

solution.

• Lack of privacy for teachers. Tell-tale sign: Hot-desks in inappropriate spaces.

• Lack of flexibility or too little space for prime functions. Tell-tale sign: Partitions in

halls.

• Under-resourced reception areas, especially in bad weather. Tell-tale sign: Nowhere

for parents and carers to shelter in rain or snow.

It is through personal experience and witnessing these issues that justifies continual reference

to this book throughout this dissertation. Tested against further sources and from the case

studies to follow we can begin to determine responsibility of stakeholders for some of the

issues. Woolner (2015, p.149) provides further observations for secondary schools, and there is

a crossover of issues. Many highlighted appear to be solvable, but also highlight a lack of

collaboration, monitoring and evaluation by stakeholders collectively. This is an historic issue,

why do we continue on the same path? Researchers highlight the issues, but real change is not

happening for what can be quite simple solutions.

Woolner (2015, p.37) refers to ‘The Impact of School Environments: A literature review’ (Design

Council, 2005), highlights government influence and policy, particularly that schools should not

be subject to political point scoring and agenda;


2.5.1. – Regulations and Guidance for school buildings Considering both the aim and first objective an understanding of the regulations, legislation and

guidance applicable to schools is necessary. BRE Trust (2010, p.3) outlines those applicable

(Fig. 6), and provides sufficient scope for research to be conducted and satisfactorily meet the

aim and objectives.

Fig. 6: Requirements and guidance relevant to school building projects (BRE Trust, 2010)

‘Investment in change should be seen as an iterative process, rather than a five-year

programme to cover the needs of a subsequent generation. Building Schools for the

Future pre-supposes a commonly held view of what the future will look like: unless this

is generated collaboratively and implemented flexibly, there is a significant risk of

expensive failure.’

From this statement we can begin to consider government influence, through intiatives,

regulation and legislation, some are short term stakeholders that can severely impact beyond a

period of office. Assessing stakeholders its necessary to provide an overview of their influence

not necessarily delve into huge detail, there is a danger of unmeaningful research and further

confirmation of what is already known.


2.5.2 – Building Bulletins Building Bulletins (Fig. 6) although voluntary provide scope, aiding realisation of the activity set

out for the 1st objective. Extensively referring to other statutory documents which can be

considered where necessary, allows also for discussion to develop on government influence.

Four bulletins have been identified, BRE Trust (2010) highlights six and Littlefield and Langan

(2012) offers more. The central graphic within (Fig. 7) highlights clearly the relationship and

reasoning behind focusing on the chosen Building Bulletins.

BB93: Acoustic Design of

Schools

BB101: Ventilation of

School Buildings

BB87: Guidelines for environmental

design

BB90: Lighting Design for

Schools

Fig. 7: Relationship between Building Bulletins that impact internal environment

(Bluyssen, 2009)

Bluyssen (2009, p.45) explains influential internal environmental factors, allowing comparison

with (Fig. 5). Ergonomics, importance of dimensions and size of space, tools, furniture, etc.

supports Woolner’s points (2015, p.145). At this point there appears an overburdening amount

of regulation, policy and guidance.

Operating within the limitations of this dissertation one is considered, BB101 has been selected

from (Fig. 7) to develop understanding of the document and issues to be explored.


Considering Government requirements and policies for a moment, is too much flexibility offered

to even meet minimum targets possibly? Are they cluttering and overburdening the process?

Considering Building Bulletins historically they highlight issues still evident today what has been

learnt? Schools continually develop from the same principles despite knowing issues,

overheating particularly (BB79, p.15) highlights increased internal gains and internal equipment

use. Considering increase of internal gains do we need to utilise the sun so much? With

increased use of technology within schools, comes the question can yesterdays policy,

regulations, philosophies and strategies deliver in the age of climate change?

Looking at natural ventilation and orientation particularly, the emphasis historically is for south

facing classrooms. Woolner (2015, p.142) refers to performance studies at Kingsmead School

(DfES 2006), highlighting benefits of north facing classrooms. Considering natural ventilation,

unwanted heat gain infiltration through building fabric, intermittent occupancy levels throughout

the year, how are these kind of issues managed once in operation? What level of

understanding do occupants have to manage these buildings? Emphasis and priority of

stakeholders changes to teaching and education.

Stakeholders collectively have long known issues regarding schools, but how successful are we

really at learning and delivering improvement? Woolner (2015, p.74) refers to CABE who

conducted a school design audit in 2006, and quotes an interviewee:

‘In this country there is a lot of innovation in design but it is not actually being pulled

together. We are all re-inventing the wheel’.

Further reference highlights the recent governments role of withdrawing some DFE design

standards including Building Bulletins, possibly providing further questions of their suitability to

some degree? Woolner (2015, p.144) quotes another source;

‘Often it seems we’ve forgotten just how much we once knew.’

Placing this solely on lack of understanding is unfair, there are more contributory factors to

maybe consider. Dudek (2000 p.45) highlights the influence of national cirriculum, the political

control exerted provides insight to government impacting schools further. However on this

occasion National Cirriculum is not considered significant enough to explore further.


2.5.3 – Building Bulletin 101 ‘Ventilation in School Buildings’ (BB101) BB101 has been extensively reviewed (Appendix 3) for both ventilation and IAQ, allowing

question of how effective government guidance is generally. Section 3.2 states benchmark

figures are from an office comparison, could BB101 be a reason why overheating in schools is

common? Extensively referring to other sources, BB101 appears to allow too much flexibility to

meet minimum requirements, is it actually fit for purpose?

Personal observations are echoed within industry. Gething and Puckett (2013, p.45-55)

highlight potential problems with some of its criteria, particularly summertime overheating. They

suggest some averaging of figures can conceal extremes, contributing to thermal discomfort,

they provide further explanations of potential issues, and offer alternative methods to determine

more accurate information in regards to overheating.

Some elements of BB101 have raised concern from RIBA, who state, ‘Overall we do not believe

these standards adequately address the issues new school buildings must account for in order

to protect the wellbeing of pupils and school visitors’. (RIBA, 2012).

2.5.4 – Indoor air quality (IAQ) “IAQ is tied to the materials in the room, maintenance procedures and ventilation, ventilation

being most influential” (Gelfand 2010, p.16). “Main purposes of ventilation are to provide fresh

air and control level of harmful gases such as, CO2, odour, VOCs, moisture/ humidity, ozone,

carbon monoxide and particulate matter” (BRE, 2010, p.7). Considering increase of harmful

gases over last 20 years, how densely populated schools are, and increased technology use, is

natural ventilation reliable enough to satisfactorily deliver for the future? Most natural ventilation

strategies are weather dependent (Heywood, 2013, p.142-148).

School design emphasis leans towards natural ventilation, SEAM (1996, p.11) refers to The

School Premises Regulations (SPR), 1996 (now 2012), highlighting exceptions; WC’s, changing

rooms, kitchens, laboratories, etc., deviating possibly from IAQ directly it provides some insight

into how government policy possibly influences school design.

Both BRE Trust (2010, p.15) and Woolner (2015, p.37) highlight the impact poor air quality has

particularly, increased occupant absenteeism, reduced productivity and performance.

Considering classrooms what is the impact and how quickly can air quality become poor?


Barrett, et al. (2015) highlights how quickly air quality can become poor in classrooms (Fig. 8);

“based on 30 children over 60 minute period air quality became poor after 26 minutes with

smallest room 77.5m3”. Considering primary teaching is predominately in one classroom, what

is the impact? Yes there are breaks, but are they sufficient for air quality to be restored?

Secondary schools move around, possibly providing better opportunity to disperse pollutants.

Windows are central to most schools being able to manage ventilation; both Barrett (2015) and

Woolner (2015) highlight the impact of blinds on ventilation. Woolner (2015, p.37) particularly

highlights relationship between ventilation, acoustics and lighting, and their impact on IAQ.

Management is crucial, older buildings are sustainable if this is done effectively; otherwise

buildings can become unduly stressed by poor decision-making and the priorities of

stakeholders who lack understanding of issues.

Education is changing with a range of providers; buildings are being adapted to suit change and

increased pupil demand. All providers primarily need to extend and adapt existing buildings,

some may have insufficient or inflexible spaces, use rooms differently to original design

intention, and educational trends can impact. These are important factors when considering

IAQ, sustainability of original school buildings can be compromised quickly by poor decision-

making. Are all education providers governed or accountable equally for meeting legal

obligations/ requirements? The variety of providers available could bring issues.

Fig.8: Impact of poor air quality on classrooms, (Barrett, et al. 2015, p.20)


2.5.5 – Thermal comfort “Achieving good levels of thermal comfort for everybody is difficult, practically unrealistic” BRE

Trust (2010) states further, “That conditions should be set that they satisfy the majority of the

people”. Clark (2013, p.93) states, “80% is a usual target for minimum number of people to be

thermally comfortable”. BRE Trust (2010) identifies two factors that determine thermal comfort;

• Environmental (humdity, temperature and air movement)

• Personal (Clothing and activity levels)

Thermal comfort relies on the perceptions of occupants within a building, Clark (2013, p.92)

describes it as “very subjective and that the perceptions of individuals can vary considerably in

the same space” and that “thermal comfort is not measured by air temperature but by the

amount of occupants not complaining”. Clark (2013, p.92) quotes ISO 7730:2005 ‘That

condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment’. Clark’s focus on

this occasion relates to an office environment, considering school environments do 80-90% of

occupants complain? They are children varying significantly in size and shape with different

metabolic rates to adults, boys and girls developing at different times, in ‘densely populated’

environments (BRE Trust, 2010), four times more so than offices (US EPA, 2012).

Children generally have limited understanding compared to adults of the effect their

environment has on them. BB101 (Section 3.2) draws on office comparisons for ventilation is it

likely that its benchmark guidance in this case is catering for the minority 10-20% (i.e. adults/

staff)? “Children and adults have different breathing rates, affected also by temperature,

humidity and CO2” (Woolner, 2015).

It is widely acknowledged that warmer air and CO2 influences breathing rates in children,

exhaled water saturated air affects children particularly. They can become dehydrated quicker,

intermittent health issues can develop, suffer impaired cognitive activity and concentration.

Both low and high humidity can effect environments, dehydrating occupants and assist spread

of airbourne viruses, warmer air encourages bacteria and mould growth. Respiratory irritation

symptoms are linked to poor air quality, such as nausea, dizziness, headaches, fatigue and

sleepiness. How are the internal environments monitored and managed, what is known of

these environments when in use? Not what research tell us, but what do occupants know and

understand of the issues?


2.5.6 – Lighting (natural and artificial) Light significantly influences physical and mental comfort of occupants, natural light particularly

because of the soft and diffused quality of it compared to artificial light. Size of classrooms can

create disparity in light levels across a room, meaning artificial light use necessary (Barrett, et

al, 2015, p.18), but a priority must always be given to natural light. BRE Trust (2010, p.11)

provides a quotation from BB90;

‘The aim of good lighting rather than being a purely formal exercise to provide enough

illumination to enable building users to go about their tasks safely and comfortably,

though this must always be a prime aim, is to create a pleasant environment which

enhances the building form and is in sympathy with the architectural intention.’

Does this really mean anything to stakeholders whose responsibility is to teach and learn? For

designers it possibly means free license to put in large expensive features such as atriums, or

PTFE roofs offering diffused light, but at the expense of significant noise when it rains (Woolner,

2015, p.145) or overheating. Or possibly large windows to express the building internally,

forgetting those who then have to operate within it. The School Premises Regulations (SPR),

2012 provides additional advice on standards specifically for local authorities, proprietors,

school leaders and governing bodies. The advice is non-statutory, meaning its possibly based

on precedents, customs or court decisions. Are past solutions or outcomes going to bring the

desired results? (SPR, 2012) advice notes highlights Regulation 8 stating;

1. Giving priority to daylight in all teaching spaces, circulation, staff offices and social

areas;

2. Providing adequate views to the outside or into the distance to ensure visual

comfort and help avoid eye strain;

3. Providing means to control daylight and sunlight, to avoid glare, excessive internal

illuminance and summertime overheating;

Designers may meet the requirements but what happens when the priority is actually teaching,

meaning blinds shut and lights on to use the technology inside? Issues that Woolner (2015,

p.145) highlights.


2.5.7 – Acoustics Acoustics has increasingly become more important in recent years, in part possibly due to

modern teaching methods, compared to traditional methods. As a result schools have become

noisier environments, contributing significantly to the condition of the internal environment.

Considering age and condition of most school buildings is it any wonder most struggle,

designed when teaching methods were different and internal environment requirements were

not so complex.

Woolner (2015, p.37) highlights ‘The Essex Study’, referring to heating, ventilation, lighting and

acoustics as significant factors in affecting perceptions of the school environment. During his

‘why architects need to use their ears’ TED talk in 2012 Treasure, (2015) refers to this study,

providing some interesting and well presented points. Highlighting Bexley Business Academy

(Fig. 9) focusing on acoustic issues, requiring expensive and extensive post completion works.

Fig. 9: Bexley Business Academy issues (Mail Online, 2010)


Valuable points are made, but Treasure (2015) shows also how some stakeholders are selling

or embellishing the importance of their work. Foster+Partners were the architects, but Valerie

Bragg an educational advisor with extensive experience and vision for open plan, talked the

architects out of their preferred street design (CABE: National Archives, 2015). Aware of issues

acoustically she bought in consultants early, yet still significant issues and cost.

Treasure uses the architect to promote his needs and highlights also Adrian James acoustic

consultants and ‘The Essex Study’. From its results and findings Essex County Council adopted

its recommendations, bringing bigger financial costs, minimal improvement of performance over

BB93 and question from some acousticians in industry themselves. The forward is written by

Bridget Shields, a Professor at London South Bank University, President of UK Institute of

Acoustics, and a hunger for pushing importance of acoustics. Funded by Essex County Council,

Federation of Property Services and National Deaf Children’s Society, with possibly

manufacturer influence from Ecophon. The British Association of Teachers for the Deaf

(BATOD) was involved, and their standard used as part of the study.

There are some limitations that come with this study, raising questions of various stakeholders,

which has brought unnecessary cost, minimal benefit over BB93, but increased workload of

acoustic consultants possibly. It is likely that most pupils would not notice the difference, but

who have possibly lost out where savings have been made to compensate for it.

• Focus is on hearing impaired children – 0.4s RT target unnecessary for school with

minimal numbers of hearing impaired children, 0.6s RT BB93 criterion for unfurnished room

would have been sufficient and cost considerably less.

• Reverberation Times of furnished rooms – Some of the study uses furnished rooms to

reduce reverberation times, if unfurnished reverberation times would have been higher.

Unfurnished is requirement of BB93, furnished rooms difficult to calculate accurately, possibly

makes BATOD criteria look more favourable and provide justification for adoption.

• Adoption of document in BB93 – It does not appear to have been adopted as a design

document, meaning local authority are spending money unnecessarily or could be spending it

elsewhere in more beneficial areas.


2.5.8 - Space and layout Briefly re-visiting Bexley Business Academy, it possibly offered some insight for future thought

with education. Completed in 2003, it was the first ‘City Academy’ pre BSF but representative of

it. Aiming to regenerate the area, improve education and connect a multi-cultural community, it

offered the opportunity for all-through education, from nursery to 6th form, with better connection

to the community. Generally all stakeholders came out of the experience with mixed fortunes,

and the procurement route (PFI) was seriously let down by stakeholders as was the case with

most BSF schools.

Considering future pupil demand and current period of austerity is the approach applicable

now? In theory yes, possibly there is merit in considering delivery of education itself not 2 or 3-

tier education, but 1-tier or all through. Could greater efficiencies be delivered for both rural and

urban communities, encouraging cultural change? Campuses, multiple schools under one roof

offering possibly better facilities management and community use, flexibility to suit future

demand and delivery of education. Highlighting issues schools in the UK face generally and

considering comparisons with Bexley, Europe offers some good examples.

‘Gateway to the World’ Hamburg, Germany Designed by BOF Architects (Fig.10), the complex includes;

• Three schools five non-school educational facilities,

(relocated to this complex)

• Speech therapy school

• Adult education centre

• Theatre group.

In total around 1200 children are taught here. Further new

spaces allow students and partial community use include;

• Canteen, operating also as auditorium

• Three-court gymnasium

• Island café, run by volunteer parents serving community.

Similar to Bexley the neighbourhood and district had issues

with attainment amongst pupils, because of the issues

great collaboration was required of stakeholders. Fig. 10 – Gateway to the World All images from BOF Architects, 2015


Collaboration of this project included a two-phase competition, and 16 workgroups to aid

development of the brief for existing buildings also. A main requirement was to meet both

Passivhaus standard and DGNB Gold certification (Detail Green, 2014 p. 46). The case study

highlights also the ‘Street of Learning’ design central to the scheme, the use of windows and

colour to show this. Also highlighted is the clustering of classrooms in blocks of 2-4, which is not

uncommon in the UK to some degree. But it is with classrooms some stark differences become

apparent with UK schools, highlighting primary school classes it states,

‘In total for each of the primary school classes – with an average 19 pupils per class –

85 square metres is available. In the speech therapy school classrooms are 65 square

metres but these classes only accommodate 15 pupils each.’

Calculating both examples equates to 4.47m2 and 4.33m2

respectively. Concertus (2013, p.13), a former local authority

architects in Suffolk quote ‘The Children and Young Peoples’

brief stating a class base of “54m2”, it is assumed for 30

children, this equates to 1.8m2 per pupil, a considerable

difference.

It appears children in the UK are not only being taught in less

space, but that class sizes are a third bigger. Not only does

the German classroom have more space with fewer children,

it’s built to Passivhaus standards, so mechanically ventilated.

Considering UK priority for natural ventilation, less space for

occupants and common issues of overheating, is it not

obvious we need to change our approach? This raises

questions of government’s role, both how it’s advised and how

it’s advising those that design and construct schools.

German schools may possibly have some comparable issues,

but their design requirements appear to have more

understanding of the issues. Considering space, do German

schools teach significantly differently to justify extra space? Fig. 11 – Internal spaces,

Gateway to the World All images from BOF Architects, 2015


It is with Passivhaus that school design in the UK is possibly beginning to improve the internal

environments and provide better use of space and light, but also efficiencies with cost and post

occupancy evaluation. Wolverhampton City Council have been very pro-active in adopting the

approach to school design, and Architype have been architects for a number of schools. Two

examples (Fig. 12) are projects that they have completed together, St. Lukes, a BREEAM

school was the earliest of the partnership. It is interesting the development of this partnership;

Passivhaus appears to be preferred over BREEAM. Further Passivhaus projects with this

partnership and supply chain have been delivered with Bushbury and Wilkinson Schools.

Fig. 12: St Lukes and Oakmeadow Primary Schools, (Architype, 2015)

Fig. 13: G/F layout Oakmeadow, similarities with German ‘Gateway to the World’ (Passivhaus Trust, 2015)

Client: Wolverhampton City Council School: St. Lukes Primary School (434 children) Cost: £6.2m (2009) Gross Area: 2600m2 Cost p/m2: £2384.61 Space per child: 5.99m2 (Staff not considered for calculation) Note: Timber Frame/ BREEAM Excellent

Client: Wolverhampton City Council School: Oakmeadow Primary School (399 children) Cost: £4.9m (2011) Gross Area: 2300m2 Cost p/m2: £2130.43 (quoted savings by Architype £1749 p/m2) Space per child: 5.76m2 (Staff not considered for calculation) Note: Timber Frame/ Passivhaus


The layout of Oakmeadow (Fig. 13) in part sounds similar to what was described with the

German example discussed, classrooms laid around breakout areas and flexible classrooms

that are split by folding partitions.

Passive House+ (2014) provides a case study of this building, outlining the process of

procurement, delivery and of lessons learnt from previous schemes. Cost savings were

achieved but also was the lesson of glazing design, a key principle of passivhaus is south facing

buildings. The increase in pupil numbers is highlighted, along with reduced space compared to

Germany, and this allowed for reduced window sizes, increased occupant rates were used to

recalculate heat gains. But is Passivhaus totally the solution for the UK?

The principles and practices appear beneficial to school design, post occupancy and evaluation

definitely so. But are stakeholders such as engineers/ designers making this expensive? It does

offer a more informed environment and lend itself to better facilities management when in use.

However there is an over reliance on south facing glazing (Fig. 14), perhaps unnecessary for

schools, possibly impacting internally when considering glare, acoustically there could be more

challenging aspects for design. Passivhaus appears to tick the boxes, but majority of its

principles are just common sense construction with informative scientific software (PHPP).

Fig. 14: Internal environment, Oakmeadow (Passivhaus Trust, 2015)


2.5.9 – Sustainable schools Delivering sustainability requires an understanding of people, processes, economic, social,

environmental factors and technology. Communication is hugely important for schools, Woolner

(2015, p.2) suggests ‘better understanding through collaboration; designers need understanding

of educational aspects, educators more environmentally competent and aware’. Considering the

relationships between stakeholders allows the 2nd objective in Figure 2.1, and associated

activities to develop, providing insight to both longstanding and current issues.

BRE Trust (2010, p.5-6) highlight key drivers for what sustainable school design should aim to

deliver, the last point being ‘respect people through involvement and consultation and meet

local needs’. How successful are stakeholders at achieving this? BRE has provided standards

for benchmarking school building performance since 2004/5, its environmental assessment

method (BREEAM) has been adapted for school design, setting out ‘aspirations’ for the

approach required because of the complexity and uniqueness schools offer:

• Schools are subject to harsh treatment by their occupants

• Dense occupation raises heat gains

• Occupation is intermittent

• Spaces need to be flexible and adaptable to meet a wide variety of needs

• They need to be understood and operated by non-building specialists

Interestingly ‘aspirations’ implies BRE would like to achieve something, not necessarily actually

ensure it is achieved. Considering BREEAM as an assessment model does it sufficiently deliver

for schools? Is it yet another costly hurdle driving up cost that impacts the eventual sustainability

of schools? Passivhaus is expensive also, but it allows for more informed outcomes, and an

approach to offer more accountability of performance. Considering stakeholders involved with

the design of schools along with BREEAM some questions could begin to be asked to take

forward for recommendations;

• Does more need to be done to guarantee performance and accountability of schools?

• Should stakeholders that fail to deliver successful school environments be penalised?

• Is there too much flexibility to comply with even minimum regulatory requirements?

• Can better assessment methods such Passivhaus possibly offer more to occupants through

more robust monitoring and evaluation, leading to more collaboration through school life?


Gelfand (2010) expands on BRE points, although relating to LEED and Collaborative for High

Performance Schools (CHPS) principles are the same. Identifying the need for sustainable

buildings, the benefits and elements affecting successful delivery. Gelfand (2010, p.2-18)

highlights how inherently important management is for delivering sustainability, Woolner (2015,

p.143-144) agrees, highlighting importance of managing “everyday conflicts and performance

problems”. Not every school can have a new building, its not achievable financially, nor is it

sustainable to try and achieve this so management is crucial.

The human benefits Gelfand (2010, p.2-6) highlights resonate most (Table 1), Woolner (2015, p.

143) suggests that occupant studies have been undertaken to varying degrees, with limited

scope on human impact, research needs to be more extensive but is expensive to deliver.

Wrestling with improving educational performance in the UK, is more research needed? Re-

phrasing this are we just regurgitating research without delivering improvement? It is also

becoming clear that the culture in all industries, including academia is of financial gain over

delivering real significant change to a situation. In order to actually address the issues we have

to change attitudes, otherwise in another 20 years we will be reading the same outcomes and

will see little change.

Table 1 – Human benefits for sustainable schools

Benefits of sustainable schools Summary of Gelfand’s points

Higher student test scores

Highlights through independent study the associated relationship between natural

daylight and improved student performance.

Similarly through independent study again identifies effect that acoustics can

impact performance also.

Increased student attendance

A healthier environment is reflected in fewer sick days from staff and children.

With emphasis on better indoor air quality a more direct approach offered to

dealing with asthma and other respiratory problems.

Through referenced source, displacement ventilation helped reduce absentee

rates by 60%, another increased daily attendance by 4%.

Enhanced teacher

performance and satisfaction.

Identifies the benefits in retaining staff, staff retention possibly exceeds cost of

‘greening’.

Changing attitudes

Outlines the benefits of cultural change a school can bring to a community; habits

and practices are developed in sustainable ways from generation to generation.


5.1 - Chapter overview This chapter provides two case studies of schools (Fig. 16) that share a relationship with each

other, in Needham Market, Suffolk. Individually they provide opportunity to analyse how they

have developed and been managed, allowing for sustainability and their internal environments

to be assessed. Collectively sustainability can be considered beyond their boundaries to help

determine the impact to the wider community, allowing for various stakeholders to be explored.

Fig. 16 – Bosmere Community Primary and Needham Market Middle Schools.

Chapter 5 – Case studies

(Land Registry, 2015)

This dissertation coincides with a period of significant change of how education is delivered in

Suffolk, from 3-tier to 2-tier as part of an expensive Local Authority School Re-organisation

Review (SOR) process, who own the site. The case studies highlight the impact of educational

trends on the school buildings, and how stress of both buildings and occupants can develop.

They are also from different time periods and allow further assessment of influences historically,

particularly highlighting the cycles of similarity through these periods and stakeholder influence.


5.2 – Bosmere Community Primary School, Suffolk

School: Bosmere Community Primary School

Location: Needham Market, Suffolk

Age of building: 33 years (Original Building 1981)

10-15 years (Nursery Extension)

1 year (New standalone classrooms)

Area of school: 1128m2 (Original Building)

1509m2 (Current inc. extensions)

(All approximate figures)

Area of Grounds: 3.6 Acres

School Ownership: LEA maintained (Suffolk County Council)

Estimated Value: £2.61m (DRC valuation method, includes building and land)

(Breakdown Appendix 4)

Capacity (Children): 315nr (Originally, not including staff)

2015-2016 Capacity: 405nr (Including staff)

Fig. 18: BCPS playing field(By author, 2015) Fig. 17: BCPS photograph (By author, 2015)


5.2.1 – Background information Previously primary years education was taught in the late 19th century Victorian Council School

(Figs 19 & 20), and located closer to the High Street, just outside site highlighted (Fig. 21).

School was subsequently demolished once current school was built and children transferred, its

re-development meant land sold and managed care home for the elderly built.

Fig. 19: Former school – NMMS Archive, 2015) Fig. 20: Council School (NMMS Archive, 2015)

Former&Victorian&Council&School&

Mature&T

rees&

Primary&School&Site&

Middle&School&

Footpath&denotes&change&in&levels&

N&

(By author, 2015)

Built in 1981 the current primary has been relocated within the same site, with now clearly

defined boundaries, the main entrance is from Quinton Road (Fig. 21). The school has been

extended at different times to suit both educational trends and lesser so community demand.

The building is analysed to consider design thinking, explores the impact of extensions, and

sustainability in and beyond its boundaries (Fig. 21).

Fig. 21 – Map highlighting history of Bosmere Primary School and location


5.3 – Needham Market Middle School, Suffolk

School: Needham Market Middle School

Location: Needham Market, Suffolk

Age of building: 79 years (Original Building, 1936)

43 years (Conversion to Middle School extension, 1972)

11 years (Cookery, Library & IT suite Extension, 2004)

Area of school: 1159m2 (Main Original Building)

2388m2 (Middle School Extension, inc. standalone music block)

2785m2 (Current school including Annex Music Room)

(All approximated figures)

Area of Grounds: 9.77 Acres

School Ownership: LEA maintained (Suffolk County Council)

Estimated Value: £6.8m (DRC valuation method, includes building and land)

(Breakdown Appendix 4)

Capacity (Children): 386nr (Edubase, 2015)

262 nr (Reduced 2014-15 due to SOR)

2015-2016 Capacity: N/A

Fig. 23: School and playground (By author, 2015) Fig. 22: NMMS playing field (By author, 2015)


5.3.1 – Background information Needham Market Secondary Modern was built in the 1930’s, and with the neighbouring

Victorian school formed part of 2-tier education in the village as it was then. In 1942 during WII

the front façade suffered heavy bomb damage (Fig. 24). In 1972 plans were drawn up for

conversion of the school (Fig. 25), and it was significantly extended from 1159m2 to 2388m2.

The school became a middle school as part of 3-tier education.

The population of Needham Market grew significantly

between 1971-81, from 1,935 to 3,424 (Heritage Suffolk,

2015), population of town today is approximately 5000,

despite this capacity of school has never been reached.

The school was extended again in 2004 with a further

400m2 approximately, including specialist classrooms,

Library and ICT suite. School is due to close in July 2015

as part of the SOR process.

Fig. 25 – Site plan of extensive 1970’s extension (NMMS Archive, 2015)

Fig. 24 – Bomb damage

(NMMS Archive, 2015)

Documents

Sustainable schools and importance of internal environment design · 2016-05-08 · 0410948 BSC (Hons) Architectural Technology i Sustainable schools and importance of internal environment