Memorandum submitted by the Sustainable
Development Commission (SDC)
We welcome the Education and Skills Committee's
decision to look at sustainable schools as we consider the Building
Schools for the Future (BSF) refurbishment and new build programme
to have the potential to help generations of young people learn
new, sustainable patterns of behaviour.
This submission looks at sustainable development,
sustainable schools, and school buildings, concluding with recommendations.
We have also answered the Committee's relevant questions specifically
in the final section.
The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)
is the Government's independent adviser on sustainable development.
The SDC is a non-departmental public body. The SDC advises Government
across a range of policy areas including education and young people,
buildings, climate change and health.
1. WHAT IS
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
AND HOW
IS IT
RELEVANT TO
SCHOOLS?
The twin goals of sustainable development, defined
in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, are living within
environmental limits and ensuring a strong, healthy and
just society. The UK Government has said it will achieve these
goals through a sustainable economy, good governance
and using sound science responsibly (HM Government 2005).
The four priority areas for action identified
in Securing the Future are:
— Sustainable consumption and production—working
towards achieving more with less and assessing costs and benefits
across the whole life-cycle.
— Natural resource protection and
environmental enhancement—protecting the natural resources
on which we depend.
— Sustainable communities—creating
places where people want to live and work, now and in the future.
— Climate change and energy—confronting
the greatest threat to our environment and society.
In addition to these four priorities, leading
by example and changing behaviour are integral to delivering
on Government's vision for sustainable development. The Building
Schools for the Future programme is the major opportunity for
the Government put sustainable development into action on the
schools estate. To do this the public sector should put sustainable
principles at the centre of its capital investment to create school
buildings, grounds and facilities that support sustainable behaviours
among pupils, parents and the local communities.
Formal education has a crucial role to play
in promoting sustainable development, both in raising awareness
and developing skills. Promoting sustainable development in schools
means integrating high standards of achievement and behaviour
with the goals of healthy living, environmental awareness, community
involvement and citizenship—many of the same aspirations
of Every Child Matters.
By linking learning to issues of direct concern
to young people—their personal quality of life, and the
wellbeing of the communities and environment around them—their
school experience becomes more relevant and compelling. For example,
issues like climate change, global justice and local quality of
life may be turned into engaging learning opportunities for pupils,
relevant to key learning outcomes as well as a vehicle for teaching
many core curriculum subjects—and a focus for action among
the whole school community.
Working towards sustainable development goals
in a well designed, comfortable and inspiring building can also
improve staff morale and retention, and recruitment of new staff,
as well as providing a focus for cooperation with the parents
and the local community.
The Prime Minister called for this in September
2004 when he said:
"Sustainable development will not just
be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar
and the way the school uses and even generates its own power.
Our students won't just be told about sustainable development,
they will see and work within it: a living, learning place in
which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means."
The Government's 2005 Sustainable Development
Strategy builds on this:
"Sustainable development principles must
lie at the core of the education system, such that schools, colleges
and universities become showcases of sustainable development among
the communities they serve." (HM Government 2005)
The DfES Sustainable Schools strategy—currently
out for consultation until end August 2006—proposes a framework
for sustainable development in schools through eight "doorways"
(sustainability themes) as follows: (DfES 2006)
| — Food and drink
| — Buildings and grounds |
| — Energy and water | — Inclusion and participation
|
| — Travel and traffic | — Local well-being
|
| — Purchasing and waste | — Global dimension
|
| |
2. WHY SUSTAINABLE
SCHOOL BUILDINGS?
We need to make a radical impact on children's understanding
and experience of sustainable development if they are to develop
the life skills needed to build a sustainable society. In a nation
of 60 million people and great diversity this challenge is central
to social goals. Capital investment in England's schools presents
a key opportunity as the vast majority of the population will
pass through the 3,500 secondary schools during their lives. This
natural "bottleneck" provides a unique opportunity for
learning about sustainable development.
The UK Sustainable Development Strategy states that "the
Building Schools for the Future programme will ensure that all
new schools and Academies will be models for sustainable development.
" And further that it "provides a valuable opportunity
for increasing the efficiency of the school building stock"
(HM Government 2005).
Moreover, it is an explicit requirement of the Government's
new Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan that:
"Treasury and DfES must work with Building Schools
for the Future programme to ensure that it is meeting high sustainability
standards and to learn lessons for other capital projects."
(HM Government 2006b)
However, while a vision for sustainable schools has recently
been published by the DfES, its implications in terms of the design
of school buildings has not been sufficiently thought through.
The Government is not yet aware whether its capital investment
programmes will result in the schools estate producing higher
or lower carbon emissions, nor what the impact will be on water
demand, waste production, traffic or other environmental factors.
The communications of the delivery body, Partnerships for Schools,
make scant reference to sustainable development. This is extremely
worrying.
2.1 The scale of the opportunity
The Government is undertaking a series of major capital investment
programmes in school buildings which will radically alter children's
learning environments. Huge sums of money are committed to these
programmes, with very tight timescales. BSF is funded to the tune
of 0.5% of GDP. The next major opportunity presented through comprehensive
renewal of school building stock is likely to be up to 60 years
away.
This capital investment programme offers the opportunity
to change not only the fabric of school buildings, but the whole
school experience for generations of children. BSF is a programme
of national significance in terms of financial expenditure and
resource use in construction, creating an opportunity to transform
the construction industry and product markets. This has relevance
across many policy agendas for public procurement not just education.
The economies of scale will allow huge cost savings to be made,
supported by standardisation.
BSF offers the Government the high profile opportunity to
lead by example in cutting carbon emissions and resource use.
But these opportunities will only be realised if those running
BSF think at the scale of the programme, seeing their decisions
in the context of a big shared vision.
2.2 Design for learning
A strong theme within the DfES Sustainable Schools strategy
is that school buildings, grounds and the local surroundings offer
a resource for learning about real issues in real places among
real people as a natural part of their education. The school then
becomes a testing ground where pupils think through the problems
and opportunities right on their doorstep, while studying the
connections to larger, sometimes global challenges. In other words
places where sustainable living is normal behaviour, rather than
the exception.
School buildings should ensure that sustainable design features
are revealed, interpreted and amenable to "hands on"
monitoring and use by pupils. We see BSF as a major opportunity
to integrate "design for learning" features into all
new and refurbished building designs.
Future learning needs should also be considered fully within
school designs such that school buildings become environments
in which enable young people and their communities can engage
with sustainable development in theory and practice. It is not
clear that BSF will deliver schools that are ready for this challenge
into the future.
2.3 Energy efficiency and carbon emissions
The UK's climate change goal is to reduce carbon emissions
by 60% by 2050. In the face of rising consumption, this is a major
challenge and will require significant effort from all sectors.
Even then achieving this target is unlikely to be sufficient:
there is already increasing evidence that by 2050 reductions in
the order of 80-90% will be required by 2050 or sooner. The Government
is committed to leading by example and a clear commitment in a
major public building programme will send a powerful message to
the private sector that Government is committed to early action
on meeting this goal. It is unlikely that there will be another
overhaul of the school estate before 2050 on a comparable scale
to the current investment, and there is no guarantee that it will
ever be repeated.
A recent scoping study commissioned by the DfES with the
SDC investigated the total carbon footprint of the schools estate—including
emissions from energy use in school buildings, commuting to school
and procurement activities. The scoping study shows that while
the schools estate contributes 2% to national carbon emissions,
it represents almost 15% of UK public sector emissions. Half of
the emissions that schools produce derive from energy use within
school building (SDC 2006).
The SDC is exploring next steps for this study and how targeted
emissions reductions could be achieved, giving wider benefits.
For example reducing emissions from commuting to school by encouraging
cycling and walking brings health benefits.
Schools spend a significant amount of money on heating and
powering buildings. Primary schools each spend on average £6,300/year
on energy, and secondary schools each spend £39,000-£55,000/year
on energy (BRE 2006a), the latter is comparable to the cost of
a teacher. Volatile energy and water prices mean schools could
be at risk of unaffordable bills if they are not safeguarded through
well designed efficient school buildings. Further, the extended
schools programme will increase energy costs for buildings by
up to 50% due to increased opening hours of school buildings.
We expect that the energy efficiency standards will rise
as BSF progresses and therefore first waves could be disadvantaged
through lower standards and higher running costs. Whilst we welcome
the fact that earlier waves are focusing on deprived schools which
will address inequality issues, these schools may also become
saddled with higher lifetime energy bills. It may therefore be
necessary to provide additional funding for sustainable design
in earlier waves.
2.4 Wider environmental opportunities
Sustainable design and management saves money through energy,
water, waste and purchasing efficiency, cushioning school budgets
from the effects of rising utility bills. This is likely to be
an increasingly important consideration over the lifespan of the
new and refurbished school building stock. Doing "more with
less"—and doing it at the earliest opportunity—produces
a classic "win-win" for the environment and the school
budget. A primary school in Hadleigh in Suffolk has no heating
bill due to high building efficiency, solar water heating and,
naturally, human body heat. This school can move into the future
without the burden of an escalating heating bill.
Environmental design, construction and operation of school
buildings can contribute to pupil health and living healthy lifestyles
in a number of ways. School buildings should enable young people
to maximise health benefits in the way they travel to school,
the indoor environment, eating and play.
2.5 Participation in design
As schools increasingly become a community resource, communities
should have greater involvement in their creation. Pupils, parents,
teaching staff, non-teaching staff, heads and governors should
all be engaged in the development of the brief and design process.
For secondary schools, parents of pupils in the feeder schools
also have a legitimate interest. Participation in design must
be very carefully handled in order to ensure it can be meaningful
and provide satisfactory outcomes for all parties. The current
short design and consultation period in BSF is therefore not adequate.
As noted by the DfES Sustainable Schools strategy, "Schools
that involve pupils in the design of playing areas experience
reduced incidents of bad behaviour, including bullying and vandalism.
Pupils begin to feel, `This is my school and I want to look after
it.'"
3. OUR ASSESSMENT
OF BREEAM
The DfES's response to the environmental agenda has been
to make it a condition of capital funding that new build and refurbishment
projects achieve at least a "very good" rating under
the BRE's environmental assessment method for schools "BREEAM
Schools" (BRE 2006b).
The Government's commitment to the use of BREEAM Schools
on all capital investment in schools is encouraging, and will
ensure that school buildings are delivered to an environmental
performance level beyond the statutory minimum of the Building
Regulations and DfES Building Bulletins. BREEAM Schools is relatively
new and will require some time to become settled in the construction
industry, and it will be some time before its impact can be fully
evaluated. We are very keen for this evaluation to be conducted
independently of Government and for the lessons learned to be
disseminated widely.
The major drawback of BREEAM Schools is that it does not
encapsulate a vision for sustainable school buildings and is therefore
unable to inspire, and is not designed to assist with the basic
design decisions necessary to make the most of the current capital
investment opportunities. The current urgency on the climate change
situation and lack of progress towards sustainable development
demands a very much stronger response than BREEAM and the question
of whether to seek BREEAM "very good" or "excellent"
is something of a red herring as neither would on its own create
a generation of sustainable school buildings. If BREEAM is the
limit of the aspiration, BSF and other capital programmes will
fail to support schools sufficiently in meeting these goals.
Below, we place the Government's own goals for sustainable
schools against the BREEAM standard and assess whether the latter
is sufficient to achieve the goal.
Potential targets for a vision for the school estate are
also suggested—the aim is to start a discussion and suggest
the level of aspiration we would expect. These are prompts for
targets and goals that we consider should be developed by DfES,
in partnership with stakeholders such as Defra, SDC, Cabe, industry,
and NGOs. Some targets are based on the targets for the government
estate, which we consider could be adopted for schools.
(i) Food and drink
Government goal
An unhealthy diet contributes to obesity and poor pupil concentration.
Healthy, ethically sourced food can reverse these effects while
protecting the environment and supporting local producers and
suppliers.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of healthy,
local and sustainable food and drink produced or prepared on site
(where possible), with strong commitments to the environment,
social responsibility and animal welfare, and with increased opportunity
to involve local suppliers.
BREEAM does not currently contribute to the "food and
drink" goal.
Potential school building vision:
— Space for growing food on all feasible school
sites.
— Space and facilities for composting food, green
waste and biodegradable materials and all school sites.
— Space for community farmers market on all feasible
school grounds.
— All schools to have suitable facilities for preparation
of fresh food.
(ii) Energy and water
Government goal
Rising demand for energy and water is storing up problems
for future generations. Energy and water conservation can tackle
this problem while saving schools money.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of energy
efficiency and renewable energy, showcasing wind, solar and bio-fuel
sources in their communities, and maximising their use of rainwater
and wastewater resources.
BREEAM creates a framework to encourage designers to implement
low energy and low water design features. CO2 emissions should
be minimised, and energy management is recognised. Low water use
fittings, rainwater/greywater recycling and water management technologies
are encouraged. BREEAM does not define a carbon emissions goal
for school buildings. However, the energy standards for refurbished
schools are the same as for new schools, which sets a challenging
requirement.
Potential school building vision:
— Construction phase of all new buildings/refurbishments
carbon neutral.
— All school buildings carbon neutral in operation
by 2020.
— All schools carbon emissions (direct and indirect)
reduced by 30% over 1990 levels by 2020.
— All schools showcase renewable energy (with technologies
safely accessible where possible) for use as a learning resource
and community focus.
— All schools optimise rainwater harvesting and
greywater recycling, with a target to reduce mains water consumption
by 25% on 2004 levels by 2020. Consider setting a water consumption
target of m3 per person/year.
— All schools to have interactive displays about
heat, power, water usage and weather conditions.
All above goals should be achieved despite the increase in
demand anticipated through extended schools.
(iii) Travel and traffic
Government goal
Rising vehicle use adds to congestion, road accidents and
pollution. Car-sharing and public transportation help ease these
concerns, while walking and cycling also boost fitness and well-being.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of sustainable
travel where vehicles are used only when absolutely necessary
and facilities for healthier, less polluting or less dangerous
modes of transport are exemplary.
BREEAM rewards designs for site selection for good public
transport facilities, good cyclist facilities, and safe and secure
pedestrian and cycle access routes. BREEAM does not have high
aspirations for delivering cycle/ pedestrian travel—a maximum
of cycle spaces for 10% of pupils is required.
Potential school building vision:
— All schools to have cycling facilities for 100%
of pupils that have the option to cycle to school.
— All schools to be located on designated cycle
routes, or appropriate cycle routes to be established if they
do not exist. Infrastructure requirements for the creation of
safe walking and cycling routes and public transport within the
school catchment to be an integral part of the planning application
and construction costs for new schools and major refurbishments.
— All schools to have well defined safe walking
routes within at least a 1.5 km radius of the school. Infrastructure
requirements to deter the school run (eg to encourage parking
away from the school and provision for safe walking the last 1.5
km) to be an integral part of the planning application and construction
costs for new schools and major refurbishments.
(iv) Purchasing and waste
Government goal
Waste, and the throw-away culture that encourages it, can
be addressed through sustainable consumption. Schools can reduce
costs and support markets for ethical goods and services at the
same time.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of resource
efficiency, using low impact goods that minimise (or eliminate)
disposable packaging from local suppliers with high environmental
and ethical standards, and recycling, repairing and reusing as
much as possible.
BREEAM encourages use of construction materials with a low
life cycle environmental impact and reuse/recycling of construction
materials as well as encouraging provision of facilities for recycling
of consumables in use.
Potential school building vision:
— Diversion of 80% of construction waste from landfill.
— All schools to reduce their waste arisings by
25% by 2020, relative to 2004-05 levels.
— All schools to recycle 75% of their waste arisings
by 2020, with goal of zero waste to landfill by 2050.
— All schools to include combined school and community
recycling facilities.
— All schools to have live interactive displays
about recycling progress, material flows for use in learning.
— All schools to have repair workshops to recondition
equipment or prepare for reuse or charitable giving.
(v) Building and grounds
Government goal
Good design of school buildings and grounds can translate
into improved staff morale, pupil behaviour and achievement, as
well as opportunities for food growing and nature conservation.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be regarded as living,
learning places where pupils see what a sustainable lifestyle
means through their involvement in the improvement of school buildings,
grounds and the natural environment.
BREEAM recognises good design practice in:
— engaging the community: to involve the local community
and building users, flexibility in the design to enable the building
to be used as a shared facility with the local community and reducing
the opportunity for crime;
— design for good management: enabling building
users to understand and operate the building efficiently, buildings
that can be easily maintained during lifecycle; and
— learning dimension: the building and school site
to be a learning resource.
However. these elements are not prioritised within the BREEAM
tool. This means they are not weighted heavily in the scoring
in comparison to energy.
BREEAM also recognises good practice in designing for comfortable
and healthy internal environments considering daylighting and
visual environment design, ventilation and indoor air quality,
healthy materials and thermal comfort.
BREEAM also encourages design practice to promote ecology
through use of brownfield land and land that already has limited
value to wildlife. It recognises improvements to ecology, including
pupils and staff in the design of the school grounds and developing
partnerships with local wildlife groups.
Potential school building vision:
— All schools increase the ecological value of their
estate by 50% over 2004 levels by 2020.
— All sustainable design features to be revealed
and interpreted as learning resources.
— All schools to engage stakeholders in design of
buildings and grounds.
(vi) Inclusion and participation
Government goal
Schools can promote a sense of community by providing an
inclusive, welcoming atmosphere that values everyone's participation
and contribution, and challenges prejudice and injustice in all
its forms.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of social
inclusion, enabling all pupils to participate fully in school
life while instilling a long-lasting respect for human rights,
freedoms and creative expression.
BREEAM does not promote design of accessible environments
for visually or mobility impaired users.
BREEAM recognises involvement of the local community and
building users in the design process in order to increase local
"ownership".
Potential school building vision:
— Accessible, flexible, adaptable design of building
and grounds for all.
— Quality space for display of school work and ethos
to community.
— Facilities to allow monitoring of performance
of the school environment to promote learning about the building.
— Meaningful consultation in school design involving
pupils, staff and local community (including feeder schools).
— Quiet areas for thought and prayer.
(vii) Local well-being
Government goal
With their central locations and extensive facilities, schools
can act as hubs of learning and change in their local communities,
contributing to the environment and quality of life while strengthening
key relationships.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of good corporate
citizenship within their local areas, enriching their educational
mission with active support for the well-being of the local community
and environment.
BREEAM recognises involvement of the local community and
building users in the design process in order to increase local
"ownership" and accommodate a range of travel options
for building users.
Potential school building vision:
— All schools to include facilities and flexibility
to act as extended schools, including child care, adult learning
and other community use.
— All schools to showcase sustainable design features
and technologies to the local community, such as renewable energy
systems and water/energy efficiency devices.
(viii) Global dimension
Government goal
Growing interdependence between countries changes the way
we view the world, including our own culture. Schools can respond
by developing a responsible, international outlook among young
people, based upon an appreciation of the impact of their personal
values, choices and behaviours on global challenges.
By 2020 we would like all schools to be models of good global
citizenship, enriching their educational mission with active support
for the well-being of the global environment and community.
BREEAM recognises the specification of responsibly sourced
materials in construction.
Potential school building vision:
— All timber used in building projects to be obtained
from certified sustainable sources.
— All materials used to have country of origin recorded.
This brief analysis suggests that BREEAM Schools does encourage
incremental improvement in environmental design of school buildings,
but by itself offers no guarantee that projects will deliver the
standard of buildings needed to support sustainable schools. In
particular BREEAM Schools does not offer a vision of sustainable
school buildings that those commissioning, designing and constructing
can work towards.
3.1 How BREEAM Schools could be strengthened
BREEAM Schools has an important role in delivering improved
environmental standards in buildings. We feel that some elements
of the BREEAM process could be improved to deliver a short-term
advantage.
It is important to maintain a level of flexibility in setting
standards for sustainable design, in order to maintain value for
money, and allow designers optimise designs for their locality.
Standards should remain performance based rather than prescriptive
in approach. We do consider that a radical review of the standards
in BREEAM Schools and the Building Bulletins will be necessary
to deliver the sustainable schools vision. The vision of what
BSF is aiming to achieve in terms of sustainable development should
be included in BSF documentation and made clear to clients, designers
and contractors. Cabe Client Design Advisers should help with
dissemination of the vision.
The tradability on key resource efficiency areas such as
energy and water consumption should be reduced to set minimum
standards for key resource efficiency criteria. This would mean
that all schools achieving BREEAM "Very Good", for example,
would have to achieve a defined energy efficiency/carbon reduction
standard above the regulatory minimum. The development of the
Code for Sustainable Homes is an example where this weakness is
being tackled.
We are aware that other versions of BREEAM require a Post
Construction Review to ensure that elements designed into the
building are delivered during construction. Without this, changes
and `value engineering' during construction may mean that the
completed building does not actually achieve its BREEAM standard.
This should become included in BREEAM Schools.
4. FURTHER BSF CHALLENGES
AND SOLUTIONS
Our focus up to this point has been on BREEAM Schools, but
there are a number of other issues that we consider need attention.
We are aware that many players within the construction industry
would be able and willing to deliver higher standards if required.
The SDC and industry partners are keen to co-operate in helping
to define a vision for sustainable school buildings, and how this
may be achieved in practice. Industry initiatives such as the
Schools Design Forum being developed by the BRE Trust (in association
with the SDC), and the British Council for Schools and Education
(to be launched on 19 June 2006), are two vehicles that may be
used to find solutions with industry.
4.1 Operation of sustainable school buildings
There is currently no standard for the resource efficiency
of schools in use. The operational energy use of buildings is
notoriously complex to predict as it is determined by a range
of building management factors. Monitoring of a number of "sustainable"
schools revealed that their energy consumption was significantly
higher than predicted.
A payment mechanism is included in BSF contracts which attempts
to encourage energy efficient management and operation of school
buildings in use. This transfers the demand risk of energy consumption
onto the private sector operator without exposing them to the
risk of price volatility. However, it does not appear that the
payment mechanism incentivises continuous improvement in energy
efficiency or installation of low carbon technologies. Better
incentivisation arrangements will need to be developed to ensure
schools are maintained and operated to minimise emissions. It
may be worth considering the payment mechanism developed by the
Department of Health for health buildings, which includes incentives
for continuous reduction in energy consumption.
Post occupancy evaluation of schools would enable assessment
of both the performance of the building as built but also an assessment
of the ongoing operation of the school. Many aspects of the building-related
vision outlined above will require ongoing care in operation and
maintenance of buildings to deliver enhanced sustainable performance.
4.2 Whole life costing
There continues to be a split between the management of capital
and running cost budgets, which works against the use of whole
life costing in design. Capital budgets for schools are fixed
by DfES on a formula basis and there is no flexibility within
that formula to ensure that whole lift costs may be minimised
through increased capital investment. The DfES should consider
accommodating whole life costing in the capital budget formula.
SDC's research suggests that increased capital funding with
paybacks within 30 years would deliver additional savings of 20,000
tonnes of carbon per year for the secondary schools and up to
10,000 tonnes of carbon per year for primary schools (BRE 2006).
The study showed that the 15% of schools that will undergo
"minor refurbishment" in BSF could benefit from £5
million investment in energy efficiency that will payback in less
than five years, saving £5,000 annually for each school.
Installing micro wind turbines and biomass boilers in 10%
of schools undergoing major refurbishment or being rebuilt would
require an investment of £45 million, and save 15,000 tonnes
of carbon per year, paying back within 30 years.
Further, "invest to save" resources are limited
at the local level. The recently announced £20 million revolving
loan fund for energy efficiency to be administered by local authorities
should be made available to schools. This would enable schools
to make investments in resource efficiency which would reduce
utilities bills, allowing the school to pay back the initial investment
over several years and benefit from savings into the future.
The vision proposed in this submission may require increased
capital investment but will deliver greater direct and indirect
savings across the public sector.
4.3 Evaluation and continuous improvement
The procurement of schools through BSF will run for 15 years,
which allows time for lessons learnt to be fed back into the procurement
process. There is a need for a process that identifies, validates
and promotes learning (of pros and cons) of all new and refurbished
schools, including independent reviewing and reporting. As schools
are procured in waves, with delivery consortia getting exclusive
contracts to design, construct (and potentially operate) a series
of schools, a requirement for evaluation and feedback into future
projects is also essential.
The Key Performance Indicators for BSF include three environmental
indicators (number of schools achieving BREEAM very good, construction
waste, energy efficiency). A greater range of indicators is needed
to track whether the BSF programme is delivering sustainable school
buildings to achieve the sustainable schools vision, and establishing
whether buildings are being managed in a sustainable way.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Although the DfES capital investment programmes are very
ambitious in terms of scale, we consider them to be unambitious
and unfocused in terms of sustainable development. Without a clear
vision and absolute goals defining what is meant by "sustainable
school buildings", the pressures to deliver new schools on
budget and on time will mean that sustainable design will remain
a low priority. We consider that there is a very real risk that
programmes like BSF will be very rushed and risk delivering poor
design and poor levels of sustainability. It would be highly regrettable
from the perspective of educational standards, children's well
being, cost-efficiency and, ultimately, the quality of life of
local communities across the country, if this rare opportunity
was lost. Anything less could deliver schools that might be barely
acceptable today but not fit for the future.
The scale of this public investment requires standards of
sustainability to be raised significantly, whilst also achieving
value for money for the public purse. The public sector is committed
to lead by example to deliver sustainable development, as the
recent Sustainable Procurement Task Force report (2006) so clearly
states. It is our view that the Government is in a position to
raise sustainability performance significantly whilst maintaining
value for money.
Identifying and specifying how school buildings can help
meet the 2020 vision encapsulated within the DfES's own Sustainable
Schools strategy is vital if we are to bring the capital investment
programmes on track in terms of delivering world class schools
of lasting value to our communities. We ask the DfES to seize
the opportunity, be bold and think big in approaching the huge
task.
We feel the mood is right for determined action in this area.
Our view is that it is better to get the delivery mechanisms and
performance standards right than rush through another wave of
ill-designed schools, which will be our legacy for several decades.
Perhaps one of the reasons we are having to build so many new
schools now is because the last waves of buildings were not inspiring,
not built or maintained to last, not built with sustainability
in mind.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The DfES should recognise sustainable development as the
overarching principle for BSF and not one in a long list of competing
agendas.
The DfES and Partnerships for Schools should work with the
SDC, Defra, Cabe, NGOs and industry groups (such as SDF) to formulate
a bold, but practical, vision of sustainable school buildings
and a sustainable schools estate. This vision should be consistent
with the goals of the DfES Sustainable Schools strategy and the
UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
Taking into account leading practice, the DfES should commission
research into (a) the true costs and benefits of high quality
sustainable design based on the vision outlined above, and not
restricting their thinking to "very good" or "excellent"
on the BREEAM Schools scale; and (b) methods of linking sustainable
design to pupil learning.
A delivery road map should be developed for and with building
clients, designers and contractors, incorporating revisions to
BSF contractual documents and tools such as BREEAM Schools. The
latter should be radically adjusted to become a key tool to delivering
the vision.
A process of evaluation and reporting should be developed
to ensure delivery of the vision, including regular independent
reviews, post occupancy evaluation, increased range of Key Performance
Indicators and feedback of lessons learnt into the procurement
process.
Capital budgets for BSF should be reviewed to incorporate
allowance for whole life costing. Better incentives should be
developed to encourage resource efficient operation of school
buildings.
The vision, road map, research and guidance should be actively
promoted through all available communication channels, positioning
sustainable development as a fundamental objective of the capital
programmes, not a "bolt on".
7. EDUCATION AND
SKILLS COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS
As the above sections may have raised more questions than
they answer, we list summary answers to relevant Committee questions
below.
Sustainability
Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable—environmentally,
economically and socially?
BSF will not currently ensure that schools are sustainable.
The vision for sustainable schools delivery through BSF has not
yet been sufficiently developed. A number of elements are currently
limiting the potential to deliver sustainable schools through
BSF.
Will schools built under BSF satisfy the Government's definition
of sustainable development as being that "which meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs"?
The BSF programme will not contribute sufficiently to delivering
the UK Sustainable Development Strategy or the DfES Sustainable
Schools Strategy. The scale of the opportunity to deliver these
visions has not been grasped and the programme is currently focused
on delivering incremental change in a number of defined areas
rather in the context of a much bigger picture. Sustainable development
needs to be the overarching principle of BSF and not one in a
list of many agendas.
How effective are the tools currently used in BSF to secure
sustainable school design, including the Building Research Establishment's
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)?
Our assessment of BREEAM Schools is that it does not suitably
define a vision for sustainable schools, and will not on its own
secure sustainable school design. It will deliver incremental
improvement in environmental performance of school buildings,
but a step change is needed to move towards the Government's sustainable
development (and indeed sustainable procurement—HM Government
2006b) goals.
Delivery and Funding
How well is the BSF delivery and procurement model working
to deliver sustainable schools and best value, including through
Partnerships for Schools and Local Education Partnerships?
Partnerships for Schools does not promote sustainable schools
as an overarching priority, nor even as a priority.
How successfully are Private Sector Providers working within
the BSF framework to deliver sustainable schools and best value?
The BSF contractual arrangements are not designed to sufficiently
incentivise private sector providers to design, build and operate
sustainable schools.
Are BSF funding levels sufficient to deliver sustainable transformation?
BSF funding levels are based on a fixed formula and do not
allow whole life costing to maximise benefits of upfront investment
in sustainable measures.
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BRE 2006a, Review of opportunities for improved carbon
savings from spend on education buildings (report for Sustainable
Development Commission).
BRE 2006b, BREEAM Schools www.breeam.org/schools.
DfES 2006, Sustainable Schools: For pupils, communities
and the environment. Consultation Paper.
HM Government 2005, Securing the Future: Delivering Sustainable
Development Strategy TSO.
HM Government 2006, Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006,
TSO.
HM Government 2006b, Procuring the Future: Sustainable
Procurement National Action Plan: Recommendations from the Sustainable
Procurement Task Force, TSO.
SDC 2006, Schools carbon footprinting. Scoping study—final
report (with GAP, SEI, Eco-Logica).
Sustainable Procurement Task Force 2006, Procuring the
Future Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan: Recommendations
from the Sustainable Procurement Task Force.
June 2006
| 
