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.

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

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).

Campus

A traditional model comprising separate buildings, each accommodating different functions or curriculum areas. The number of buildings may vary and students may need to move between blocks after every lesson or may be timetabled to one building for longer periods.

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.

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

Benefits and disadvantages include:

• 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.
• 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.

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.
• 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 of the atrium may cause acoustic issues however, particularly if there is a staggered lunchtime.
• 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 continuous ribbon of perimeter accommodation allows provision to be rebalanced in response to changing demand, while maintaining groupings. Combined with the centralised, inward-looking arrangement, the building form can also encourage and facilitate cross-curricular activity.
• 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 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.