Design process
The contractor was selected through a traditional tendering process. The successful tender was received in February 2001, and agreement was reached with the contractor to trial a partnering approach to achieve ‘best value’ in the realisation of the project, and to avoid the potentially adversarial relationships of a traditional contract. The partnership involved the establishment of a stakeholder core team to monitor and control the construction phase, and to apply ‘value engineering’ principles to all decision making. In addition to those usually involved in a project of this nature (the architect, a project manager from the contractor and an LEA representative), the deputy head of the school was also part of the core team, which met at least once a week throughout the project.
The close participation of the deputy head in Phase 1 of the project made it possible to programme and sequence the work to the benefit of all parties. Major works, such as demolishing the old music block, and rewiring and replacing worn pipes in the corridors, were timed to make maximum use of holiday periods. The deputy head’s involvement, and the existence of some surplus space in the existing buildings, also provided some flexibility for the school, allowing it to remain fully operational during the course of the project without the need for temporary accommodation.
Natural ventilation systems were incorporated into the designs for the new buildings wherever possible. The atrium in the science and technology block is ventilated by electrically operated rooflights controlled by a weather station and building energy management system (BEMS). Air supply to this space is provided via the surrounding ground and first-floor classrooms, the windows of which are also electrically controlled and operated, with manual override in each room. The system is programmed to open the windows for a short period during class changeover in winter, whilst in summer the internal temperatures are the controlling factor.
Heating to the new areas is generally provided by underfloor systems. Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design of Schools, had not been published during the design and construction periods, but post-contract modifications have been made to achieve compliant reverberation times. This was carried out with the help of an acoustic consultant and proved surprisingly easy to achieve by the addition of strategically placed acoustic ceiling tiles.
Phase 2 of the project had a very rapid planning phase, with DfES funding confirmed in June 2004 with a condition that the building be occupied by October 2006. This severely limited the scope for developing an educational vision. Instead, meetings between staff, students, governors and community representatives developed 10 key principles for the project. The five essential requirements were social space for students, ICT provision, inclusion, flexibility and a redeveloped main hall. The desirable items were staff space, good toilets, the right climate for learning, zoning for community use and good security. Different groups then focused on specific issues – for example the year 7 students and school council concentrated on the design of the courtyard, students worked on the design of the eating areas, favouring a choice of different locations and contributing to the design of the local furniture.
The design and development process was characterised by three partnerships. Firstly there was a very strong relationship with the design team who spent time walking round the building in order to understand the vision. Secondly, there was the partnership with the local authority, which ensured that the needs of the community and the city were addressed, rather than just those of the headteacher and school. Finally there was the partnership with the contractor which, although strained at times, was vital to the success of the project. There were seven phases, using 22 mobiles, a temporary dining hall and temporary stairs at times.
The school recognised the need for them to be represented by a full-time project manager, and funded an individual from their own resources. The head teacher remained heavily involved at a strategic level throughout the project. During the construction stages of phase 2, absenteeism amongst students and staff increased, and exam results fell. However, a year later, attendance and results were the best ever and the school became one of the fastest improving in the country.
