Tag Archives: Planning policy

Making school buildings fit for purpose

Posted on by
1

In ‘Ideas for an Incoming Government’ no. 14, Dr Pam Woolner from the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences argues that with pupil numbers rising, our schools are under pressure, and our school buildings need to catch up. Her idea is to make working with school students, staff and the wider community a priority in tackling the problem.

School buildings

What’s the problem?

Our school estate is not fit for purpose. Although this government and the previous Labour administrations have overseen new school building, it was long overdue and has not got anywhere near renewing or refurbishing all the schools in need. It has also led to very uneven provision: schools built over the last 150 years that have been designed for disparate understandings of education.

Meanwhile, student numbers are generally rising, putting pressure on this already-strained infrastructure. For the first time in decades, the UK is experiencing a sustained increase in birth rate which will translate into steady increases in school numbers. As Sarah Healey (then Director, Education Funding Group, DfE) commented in 2013, “this is not a very short temporary bulge […] so it will continue to be a challenge.” (Westminster Education Forum, 16.1.13).

This is concerning because there is an established, if not entirely understood, link between the quality of the school space and student outcomes. In particular, research shows that there are clear negative consequences of inadequate school buildings. Focused research has found direct effects on learning of specific physical problems including noise, high and low temperatures, poor air quality and limited learning space. Other studies reveal correlations between measures of school building and classroom quality with student outcomes including attitude, attendance and attainment. We can see how a poor school environment might contribute to a spiral of decline: this could involve declining student attitudes, increases in poor behaviour, reduced well-being and attendance, lowered staff morale and difficulties in staff retention.

Yet research into the physical environment of education also demonstrates that there is not a single perfect or ideal setting for learning. Although spacious, well-ventilated classrooms with good acoustics and temperature controls will tend to be beneficial, the suitability of other aspects of the school building will depend on what the school community wants to do: collaborative learning in groups, hands-on science, musical performance and sport all make particular, sometimes conflicting, demands on space.

The solution

There is some evidence that in effective schools, staff tend to engage with the physical environment and attempt to make it fit their needs. Other research suggests an important role for students in such evaluation and adaptation activities. In these processes, everyone comes to understand the helps and hindrances of their particular building much better and are able to make better use of it.

The evidence base reveals the negative effect of poor school premises, but it does not provide priorities for fixing them, and shows that there is no ideal to aim for. We need to understand the intentions and needs of the school community to design them an appropriate setting.

This all implies a necessity of actively involving school students, staff and the wider community in any redesign or rebuilding, helping them to think collaboratively about exactly what their requirements are.   There is expertise among architecture and design professionals to make such participation happen, but it needs to be a central requirement of rebuilding and refurbishment processes to ensure that it does. Unfortunately, it is this element of participation that is being determinedly left out of the current government’s funding arrangements for school rebuilding.

An incoming government needs to ensure that the understandings which school users have of education in their settings are brought together and developed to drive decisions in re-builds, re-designs and refurbishments. Ultimately, this is the most productive way to address the shortcomings of the school estate, which if ignored will detrimentally affect the education of the citizens of tomorrow.

The evidence

Bakó-Birób, Zs., Clements-Croomea, D.J, Kochhara, N., Awbia, H.B. and Williams, M.J. (2012) ‘Ventilation rates in schools and pupils’ performance’, Building and Environment, 48: 215-23.

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. Kobbacy, K (2013) A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59: 678-689.

Durán-Narucki , V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 278-286.

Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: student participation in creating better learning environments. Educational Review 58(2): 183-193.

Maxwell, L.E. (2003) Home and School Density Effects on Elementary School Children: The Role of Spatial Density Environment and Behavior 35: 566 – 577

Uline,C. L. Tschannen-Moran, M., and DeVere Wolsey, T. (2009).The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3):400–426.

Woolner, P. (2015) (Ed.) School Design Together, Abingdon: Routledge

Woolner, P.and Hall, E. (2010). Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7(8): 3255-3269.

Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins,S., McCaughey, C., Wall, K. (2007a) A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1): 47-70.

 

Tackling Obesity – Through Planning and the Built Environment

Posted on by
Reply

With obesity rates at crisis point across the UK, Dr Tim Townshend, Director of Planning and Urban Design within the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, discusses the part that our built environment has to play. Part of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal‘s Ideas for an Incoming Government series, Dr Townshend argues that central government and local authorities need to take action now to promote healthy living in our communities.

Tackling obesity

What is the problem?

Rates of obesity have reached crisis point, with accompanying health problems (type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease etc.). In 2007 the Foresight Report ‘Tackling Obesities: Future Choices’ suggested there was enough expert evidence to implicate built environment in the obesity crisis. The places where we live, work, go to school and spend our leisure time can either provide, or constrain, opportunities for physical activity and access to both healthy and unhealthy food. However, the planning system in England is ill equipped to act on this evidence.

This needs action now. Even if the influence of the built environment is small at the individual level, given its impact is over whole communities and that it generally survives several generations unchanged, it is highly significant in aggregate. The change in policy initially needs to address the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF calls for the planning system to promote ‘healthy communities’, but it is vague in its focus and how this might be achieved.

Obesity is not the only health crisis to face the country – however, it is one in which intervention in the built environment could make a significant difference and interventions to tackle obesity have the potential to deliver broader health and well-being benefits. For example, there is evidence that providing adequate good quality open spaces will encourage physical activity – we also know that physical activity and greenery/green space are also linked to improved mental health and well-being. Moreover obesity is also a problem that has a distinct socioeconomic profile – poorer communities are more adversely affected by obesity and related health/well-being issues than their better off neighbours – and therefore addressing this issue can help tackle health inequalities through the planning system.

The Solution

Action by Central Government/ Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

The NPPF:

  • The NPPF (or its replacement) needs to be strengthened – it should state that planning policies must deliver (not merely promote) environments that support healthy lifestyle choices.
  • The NPPF should be clear that policies that deliver healthier environments should be enshrined in core polices of the Local Development Framework (LDF) – i.e. not just Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) so they carry enough weight to be acted upon.
  • The viability clause – paragraph 173 – must be rewritten. The elements which support healthy lifestyles, good quality public realm, greenspace, bespoke cycle provision are expensive – however ‘viability’ should not be used as an acceptable reason to remove elements of design in the planning process which are proven to be linked to healthy behaviours and outcomes.

More broadly non-planning actions DCLG should consider include:

  • Including directives that aim to improve health and wellbeing in other built environment guidelines – such as UK Building Regulations
  • Introducing a ‘healthy lifestyle’ kitemark or rating system (like that used for energy efficiency) for new buildings, particularly housing.

Action by Local Authorities

Local authorities should have planning policies that:

  • Deliver healthier lifestyles and greater well-being through the built environment incorporated in their Local Development Framework – to ensure enough weight is attached to these policies. Supplementary Planning Documents may be used to support and/or enhance core policies.
  • Enable ‘active travel’ (walking/cycling) to be ‘designed in’ as part of everyday life for communities wherever possible
  • Ensure adequate greenspace – in its full variety of forms (pocket parks; parks; sports pitches; garden allotments; wildlife areas etc) – is provided, particularly when new housing is developed
  • Restrict the proliferation of fast food outlets – in particular prohibit new outlets in the proximity of schools and children’s centres

More broadly:

  • Ensure the new public health responsibilities in local authorities (Public Health Boards etc.) are fully linked into to planning practice – for example through robust review processes.

The evidence

There is a vast body of evidence, it’s not all in a form that can be used by planning – however the Government Office for Science Foresight Report provides a useful summary:

FORESIGHT 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices – Project report. London: Government Office for Science.

Also see:

LAKE, A. & TOWNSHEND, T. 2006. Obesogenic environments: exploring the built and food environments. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126, 262-267.

TOWNSHEND, T. G. & LAKE, A. A. 2009. Exploring obesogenic urban form, Theory, policy and practice, Health and Place, 15, 909-916.

Townshend T.G. (2014) Walkable Neighbourhoods: principles, measures and health impacts, in Burton E., & Cooper, R Well-being and the Environment, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell

TOWNSHEND, T.G., GALLO, R. & LAKE, A.A. (May 2015) Obesogenic Built Environment: Concepts and Complexities in BARTON, H., GRANT, M., THOMPSON, S., & BURGESS, S. (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-being, Abingdon, Routledge.