Construction firms are racing to provide lower cost solutions to school building. Stephen Cousins looks at the innovative, flexible and standardised systems that are vying to be top of the class in the post-BSF era.
As construction grapples with the effects of the government’s austerity drive, the collapse of the Building Schools for the Future programme and waits anxiously to hear the government’s response to the James Review of capital spending on schools, it might seem like school building in the UK is dead on its feet.
But look beyond the headlines and you find that new build and refurbishment projects are still being delivered, new work is coming to tender, and bubbling beneath the surface is a well of innovation as industry practitioners test out new technologies and delivery methods that will enable them to deliver fit for purpose, flexible and sustainable schools on an ever decreasing budget.
Council budgets have been slashed by up to 9% this year and even greater cuts are to come — last July education secretary Michael Gove called a halt to BSF, and then demanded a further 40% savings on schools already procured.
Meanwhile, Sebastian James’ review of the school building programme, published this April after a five-month delay, recommends a 30% cut in the cost of school buildings, mostly through the centralised and standardised procurement of construction, while at the same demanding “fit for purpose” places for every pupil in the country. The government’s response is expected this month and will guide future spending decisions from 2011-12 to 2014-15.
Rather than adopt a single set of prescriptive school designs, the government is likely to take a more pragmatic approach, recommending a
suite of design options for classrooms, sports halls, toilet blocks etc, each built using a standardised kits of components. “In our experience there’s no need for an overly-prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach, we don’t have a standard school curriculum, so you need that flexibility,” says Keith Rayner, frameworks director at BAM Construct.
Despite being dealt this tough hand, the industry has projects on the table. The 33 schools that avoided the BSF cull are going ahead in 14 councils. In December, the government awarded £2bn capital funding to schools and local authorities for 2011-12, which includes £800m funding to provide new school places and £858m maintenance capital. Last month Partnerships for Schools announced that the £800m will be let in batches to the 15 contractors on its academies framework: 28 schemes, worth £250m, in the north; and 43, worth £550m, in the south. The first two to come to market, worth a total of £25m, will be in Bolton and Brighton.
The government is now working with practitioners to drive better value for money, reduce building costs, and create a more robust and efficient system for future school building projects. In many cases this is leading to innovation, says Jo Parody, partner at consultancy Calford Seaden: “Everyone is re-evaluating their approaches in an attempt to drive down costs. We’ve been working with various county councils where project cost ceilings have come down from around £2,000 per square metre to £1,400 per square metre, through standardisation of design. In the current market you can build for £1,400 per square metre as long as you design things sensibly.”
“The question we’re asking is: what technology do you use to make that happen?” adds Simon Harris, head of strategic research at EC Harris. “If a council doesn’t have the money to pay for a new school, it might be possible to convert an existing building into a school.”
Architects, developers and contractors are now embracing off-site construction methods and standardised approaches to design to cut costs through repetition, improved quality of the end product and faster on-site delivery. The new schools agenda will be a learning curve but one the industry is already swatting up on.
EdVenture
Who developed it? Education consultant Bryanston Square and Norwegian practice Biong Arkitekter, with design and cost advice from Aecom and Davis Langdon.
What is it? A flexible school design based on a permanent external shell and core and a highly adjustable interior comprising volumetric modular and panellised units that can be detached from the shell and easily rearranged and dismantled. Similar to an airport or a sporting arena, the school can be quickly reconfigured to suit teaching needs and class sizes, extra classrooms can be added or removed, and if the school becomes too large for the premises and has to relocate, the building can be converted for other uses.
“Education is changing much faster than construction can keep up with,” says Marcus Orlovsky, director of Bryanston Square. “Too many schools are being built that in five years are unsuitable for teachers’ needs. We’re offering complete adjustability.”
Where has it been used? Liverpool City Council is planning to build four new schools worth a total £60m using the EdVenture system. The schools will incorporate an external glulam timber shell capable of unsupported spans up to 60m, while a variety of volumetric modular rooms and panellised systems will populate the interior depending on the schools’ needs. 15 other local authorities are interested in using the same concept, says Bryanston Square.
Cost indicator: £1,100 per m2 build cost.
Well done:Ultimate flexibility to mass-customise spaces; ability to convert for commercial use; derisks council’s investment.
Could do better: Relies on staff’s ability to reconfigure spaces; looks like an airport terminal.
James review rating (based on pros and cons): 5/10
EcoCanopy
Who developed it? Bryden Wood Architects
What is it? A prefabricated panellised system of lightweight concrete waffle floor slabs and walls arranged in 4m x 4m or 4m x 6m-long modules to create flexible
designs for permanent buildings, capped by an exposed natural timber roof canopy. Inbuilt adaptability means wall panels can be “unplugged” from one another to expand rooms or add extra storeys. Technology used to build Sainsbury’s supermarkets has been utilised to allow larger spans for secondary school sports halls, drama spaces and dining halls. Typical delivery for a 1 Form Entry primary school programme involves: five weeks detailed design (From RIBA Stage D), five weeks factory manufacture, three weeks delivery and erection, 10 weeks fit out, and two weeks commissioning/handover.
“Our solution is 80% off-site manufactured components and 20% bespoke design. We didn’t want to become obsessed with componentising everything, which can spoil the experience for end users,” says Paul O’Neill, director at Bryden Wood. “We tape and joint and skim finish interior surfaces to give end users the feel of a traditional build, for example.”
Where has it been used? Main contractor Ashe Construction has used EcoCanopy on nine children centres in Oxfordshire, Herts and Warwickshire. Skanska is using EcoCanopy to build a new primary school in Bristol, and Bryden Wood has just been asked to join a bid team for two new build secondary schools.
Cost indicator: Under £1,000 per m2 out-turn cost.
Well done: Low-cost solution; panellised system helps meet the client’s requirements and the aesthetic aspirations of the architect; the ability to alter and expand the main structure post-completion allows for even more flexibility.
Could do better: Diamond-shaped roof canopy not to everyone’s taste.
James review rating: 8/10
Nurture Future
Who developed it? Cartwright Pickard Architects and Tarmac Building Products
What is it? A blueprint for a fast to erect and sustainable pre-engineered school based on a kit of parts concrete superstructure. Load-bearing pre-cast concrete facade panels incorporate heating and cooling systems, fire protection and acoustic insulation, while hollow core pre-cast floors fitted with Tarmac’s TermoDeck technology allow air to pass through the concrete to optimise
use of thermal mass.
Extensive use of concrete reduces the need for dry lining, suspended ceilings, or raised floors. Overall running costs are reduced by up to 60% using the system, says the architect.
Where has it been used? Nowhere yet, but the company is talking to several major contractors interested in taking it forward.
Cost indicator: £1,400 per m2 total build cost.
Well done: Factory-controlled quality, customisable design, precast solution provides the robustness and thermal mass of concrete.
Could do better: Concrete walls are unmovable once built.
James review rating: 6/10
Learning Barn
Who developed it? BAM Design
What is it? Standardised kit of construction parts design solution based on a modular grid, with a focus on fi t-for-purpose environments, more effi cient use of space and circulation and pared back internal fi nishes using exposed services and polished concrete, as seen in Scandinavian schools. A three-storey secondary school model developed by BAM, and based on 1,200 pupil places, cut build costs by 40% compared to the BSF average.
The same kit of components is suitable for new build, refurbishments and extensions, but components will vary based on client needs and location. The system could be delivered traditionally or off-site, but as a one-off school traditional build works out cheaper, explains
Keith Rayner, frameworks director at BAM: “Unless the Department of Education is going to launch a number of identical schools projects that can all be produced in a factory, off-site modular construction just doesn’t stack up fi nancially, and local planning regulations and differing site circumstances all conspire against this approach.”
Where has it been used? The concept comes after BAM analysed three academies it developed in Medway, at Strood (pictured), Rochester and Brompton, to see how they could be designed more effi ciently.
Cost indicator: £1,600 per m2 out-turn cost (excl ICT) for a school built in the south east. Well done: Contractor-designed solution guarantees buildability; fl exible specifi cation of materials.
Could do better: Relatively expensive compared to other systems mentioned here.
James review rating: 6/10
Closed Timber Panel Offsite Manufactured Building
Who developed it? EBS Elk
What is it? A factory-engineered system that’s delivered to site in panels, pre-installed with windows, doors, insulation, electrical conduits, sanitary ducting, and even external timber cladding or render finishes. Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery will extract heat generated by pupils and ICT equipment and use it to heat incoming air and pump it back into classrooms.
Where has it been used? On flat developments and domestic properties. In October the firm will build an extension to a private school comprising three classrooms, a hall, changing rooms and toilets. It will take just two weeks to erect during half-term.
Cost indicator: £1,300 per m2
Well done: Very fast build time means cost savings and nominal disruption when working alongside schools in use.
Could do better: Uninspiring aesthetic; high air tightness and thermal efficiency may cause issues when extending from an existing school block.
James review rating: 5/10
Sunesis
Who developed it? Willmott Dixon and Scape, a local authority-controlled procurement company.
What is it? An off-the-shelf, standardised set of school designs claimed to save 20% over the cost of the equivalent bespoke school, mostly through streamlined procurement and design processes. Like a kettle, a TV or a car, when you buy a Sunesis school you are buying a clearly defined product with a fixed price. Customisation of the design is limited to colour choices for floors and wall finishes, doors, windows and the outside walls.
Currently there are three Sunesis models for primary schools, the Paxton, the Keynes or the Newton, which cater to different school sizes, types of site and environmental performance requirements. Projects are delivered through the Scape National Contractor’s Framework set up to get projects through the time-consuming OJEU tender process. “We’re saying to councils, you might spend £1m-£1.5m on a refurb, but for just over £2m you can have your own facility,” says Willmott Dixon’s Midlands MD Peter Owen.
Where has it been used? Willmott Dixon is working up three new secondary school designs that will place a greater emphasis on improving the speed of on-site delivery and improving sustainability in terms of air tightness and cutting energy in use.
Cost indicator: 20% reduction on bespoke school equivalent.
Well done: A shiny new school for a fixed price with a guaranteed delivery time of just 13 months; project value is pre-tendered so no need to wait nine months to go through the OJEU process.
Could do better: Very limited customisation of design; could put architects out of work if it catches on.
James review rating: 6/10
Learning Barn
Who developed it? Scott Brownrigg
What is it? Modular school design based on a standardised kit of components, developed by the architect, intended to maximise the potential for off-site fabrication. Standard components, including wall panels, windows and doorsets, can be assembled in various configurations to allow a high degree of customisation in response to site and client requirements.
Scott Brownrigg is developing the concept to incorporate real product components in a 3D building model using the Building Information Modelling software Autodesk Revit Architecture. Architects working on individual schools will draw standard component information from the model and assemble them to suit specific sites.
The software will allow engineers to analyse designs in greater detail and create a fully co-ordinated drawing package.
Where has it been used? The Learning Barn concept was used to deliver 60% of the space requirement across six schools built by Costain and William A Berry for Kent County Council in 2007.
Cost indicator: £1,400 per m2
Well done: The architect designs the kit of parts right down to specific product information, giving a precise idea on cost
and construction and reducing risk for the main contractor.
Could do better: When used on school extensions the interface between existing and new structures requires bespoke design; economies of off-site manufacture only possible when several schools are built simultaneously using the same system.
James review rating: 6/10
James review rating: ??? in who`s eyes, are these ratings your own or have these concepts been tested against a set of deliverables. I have read the full James review and failed to see these marks. could someone tell me where they are please?
I take on board the need to reduce costs, yes BSF was expensive and extremely slow but the schools that have emerged from this process have, in the main been great buildings to provide transformational, sorry don`t use that word anymore. Education for the masses.
I firmly believe that both Mr Gove & James believe that construction companies have been “making hay while the sun shone” and they must be able to provide excellent Bsf Schools but at the new framework rates.
I suspect we will only find out who is correct………………… in 7 years time when our new intake of year seven take their A levels in 2018!!!
I have been retired now for three years. I worked in the building industry for 49 years being involved in much construction work involving schools. I found that traditional building construction in schools was always cheaper than all the one off schemes that were available. Many of the building roofs were could not be managed by the school caretaker. Gutters could not be cleared we had one school where access to the gutters was impossible. I was called to a school where a high level gutter was blocked, on inspection it was not sealed and the classroom beneath it was flooded ruining all the computers in that room.
Return to traditional construction and the problems these new school are experiencing.