Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

Introduction
This report relates to a full planning application for a new secondary school in Marchmont, Edinburgh. The school is proposed to replace the existing James Gillespie’s High School, as part of the City of Edinburgh Council’s Wave 3 Schools Programme. The following report relates to proposals which were submitted as a planning application to the City of Edinburgh Council dated 9th August 2011 and were the subject of an A+DS Design Review on the 11th October 2011. Preliminary proposals had been presented at pre-application stage to A+DS Design Review on 22nd February 2011 and an interim report was issued on 15th March 2011 following that meeting, a copy of which is appended to this report for information.

A+DS’s Schools programme has had some previous involvement with the project working with the City of Edinburgh Council and the Project Team on aspects of the educational brief and decant spaces.

A+DS Views

1 General comments
1.1 Once again we thank the Project Team for their very clear presentation and welcome the opportunity to review the designs at full application stage further to our previous review of the preliminary proposals earlier this year. We generally support the way in which the designs have developed and commend the Client and Project Team for the quality of their designs which we feel continue to be of a high standard and are potentially exemplary. The Project Team appear to have addressed many of our previous comments and we are pleased that, along with the City of Edinburgh Council, the Project Team feel we have helped to stimulate positive and helpful debate in developing the designs to this stage.

1.2 We note that the Planning Authority is broadly satisfied with the development of the designs since previously reviewed and recognise the amount of work that has gone into the project thus far. In particular, the Authority informed us that the position of the dance and gym block has been revised in response to public consultation and that they are content that this satisfies CEC guidance in relation to quality of natural daylight to neighbouring properties.

1.3 Historic Scotland welcome the very sensitive continuing re-use of this historic site. They advise that their primarily locus is the setting of the ‘A’ listed Bruntsfield House and they accept that this has been carefully reconfigured as part of the scheme. They have some concerns about the scale of the proposed courtyard proposed in front of the principal historic building. Their preference would have been for the proposed music / drama block to be set further back relative to Bruntsfield House however they acknowledge that the constraints of the site will not permit this. The Project Team acknowledged that Bruntsfield House is a key focus on the site.

2 Current application
2.1 Site and landscape strategy
The Project Team have demonstrated their contextual approach to the site and the wider figure-ground of the surrounding area. As indicated at the previous review, we feel that the proposed urban response of a linear block of teaching space along Lauderdale Street appears appropriate echoing, as it does, the form of the tenements opposite.

However, at the review of the preliminary proposals earlier in the year, we were concerned that the positioning of a number of the proposed buildings relative to the site boundaries, and to each other, was such that it created a number of spaces that appeared somewhat resultant and difficult to envisage as being active or enjoyable. We recognise the considerable improvements that have been made to the design of the external environment since our earlier meeting, and are pleased to note that in developing the landscape strategy, consideration is being given to the individual character and purpose of each external space on the site. We are also pleased that, further to our previous comments, the designs for the internal courtyard spaces in the main teaching block are now being incorporated into the general landscape drawings as an intrinsic part of both the landscape and the teaching spaces, and that further consideration is being given to how these and other external and interior spaces might work together.

Adjacent Primary School
It would be useful for the relationship between the new school and adjacent primary school to be made more explicit as part both of the landscape strategy and of the overall narrative of the project.

Landscape Design
The site benefits from having large open areas for teachers and pupils to use on a day-to-day basis both as extended teaching areas and as recreational space. The design of the surrounding landscape has an important role to play in providing mitigation of the wind, sun and rain to allow these spaces to be as useable as possible. As part of the landscape design, we would encourage further exploration of how the removal of existing trees and the implementation of new planting might effect and create opportunities for controlling and exploiting the influence of weather throughout the year.

Refuse and Recycling
We recognise that as currently proposed, the existing recycling centre, boiler house and flues have a negative impact visually on the northern edge of the site. We note the Project Team’s aspiration for refuse and recycling to be taken off site and that they are working with the Council in this regard in as part of a wider strategy for the area, and we would encourage a resolution of this issue to be found whether that might be on, or off, site.

2.2 Main teaching block / environmental strategy
We support the way in which the design of the teaching block has developed. In particular we welcome the improvements made to the north end of the building that addresses Warrender Park Road and Lauder Road. The introduction of covered balconies and set backs in this location appears to improve the design of this prominent corner. We also welcome the introduction of glazing to the north façade to help provide good quality northern natural light within these classrooms, particularly the art rooms where this will be most advantageous. However, the majority of the classrooms in the teaching block will face east and west, which could be problematic in terms of the potential for excessive glare and heat gain caused by direct sunlight into these spaces. We would be interested to learn more about how this will be addressed and what the internal environment of these classrooms will be like.

We note that the new energy centre for the school is to be located in the centre of the main teaching block, in the undercroft where the section of the building splits, and that the extract chimneys are to be integrated into the overall roofscape to help alleviate any potential for visual clutter.

2.3 Bruntsfield House & Entry Pavilion
At the last review, although supportive of the proposal for an entrance pavilion in principle, we were not convinced by the form of the building being described at that time. The proposed bridge link between the entrance pavilion and the ‘A’ listed Bruntsfield House appeared incongruous, and we support the Project Team in their decision to now omit this element such that the buildings remain separate. We understand this revision is in part due to limitations in the accessibility of Bruntsfield House, to allow it to form a focus for the campus, and to optimise its potential for it being adapted for various uses in the future.

With regards to the entry pavilion building itself, we generally welcome the way in which the designs have progressed and support the ambition for the building to visually engage with Bruntsfield House in a contemporary and positive manner. We find the proposed materials interesting though we wonder whether the expression of the building’s external envelope might benefit from further subtle articulation, particularly with regards to the language of the roof form which appears less developed than that of the main teaching block to which it is attached. In doing so we suggest the building might create a stronger visual marker at the end of the pedestrian entrance into the campus from the north and, potentially, also create a visually stronger (yet still contemporarily expressed) architectural relationship with Bruntsfield House.

2.4 Sports block
It is not yet clear what provision will be made for those wishing to watch outdoor sporting activities in the proposed Multi Use Games Area at the south end of the site adjacent to the sports block. At the moment the space appears tightly bound around the majority of its perimeter by building, car parking and landscaping, which appears to negate any potential for interaction by family and peers in the activities within.

2.5 Access / wayfinding
It was noted that, whilst understanding the Client’s wish to limit access into the school from Warrender Park Road and Whitehouse Loan from a security perspective, the Planning Authority continue to question whether an opportunity exists for an additional entrance to be provided from Lauderdale Street - albeit at the start and end of each school day only - in order to provide greater permeability through the site and to promote opportunities for walking and cycling. We trust that a satisfactory resolution can be reached in this regard as the promotion of sustainable transport to and from school is important for both individuals’ health and the wider sustainable transport agenda.

2.6 Sustainability
We continue to support the Client in their aspiration to achieve a BREEAM excellent rating for the school. We encourage all concerned to work together to help achieve this ambition.

3 Process & Procurement
3.1 The selection of procurement route and choice of contractor will be critical in allowing the potential that is evident in the current scheme to be realised through to the completion of the building. The choice and operation of this delivery mechanism, and the selection of the team tasked with the process, should ensure that the rigour of the design is maintained through the detailing and construction processes in order that the designs do not become diluted.

Conclusion
This is a potentially exemplary project and we commend the Project Team for the quality of their designs and for their convincing design approach in this sensitive site. We generally feel that the designs have improved since previously presented and that many of our earlier comments have been addressed, particularly in relation to the design of the external environment and the way in which the spaces now seem to be working together. There are some more minor aspects of the designs that we suggest might benefit from further development, particularly in relation to the detailed design of the entry pavilion and further environmental considerations for the teaching block and individual classrooms.

We would reiterate our previous comments with regards to the importance of the selection of procurement route and choice of contractor. It is of fundamental importance that the Design Team retain as much influence as possible through the delivery of the project in order to ensure that the designs do not become diluted and so the potential evident in the current design can be delivered in a convincing and satisfying building.

APPENDIX 1 – A+DS Interim Report issued 15th March 2011
(Please note that a previous incorrect reference to ‘Spottiswoode Street’ rather than ‘Spottiswoode Road’ in this report under point 3.5 has now been corrected.)

INTERIM REPORT

Project Title: EDC 54: James Gillespie’s High School
Details: Proposed new secondary school
Location: Edinburgh
Use type: Education / Civic / Public Realm
Client / Developer: The City of Edinburgh Council, Department of Children and Families
Lead Designer(s): JM Architects
Planning Authority: The City of Edinburgh Council
Planning Status and Ref: Pre-planning Application Ref: 11/00106/PREAPP
Issue Date: 15th March 2011

Introduction
This report relates to pre-application designs for a new secondary school in Marchmont, Edinburgh. The school is proposed to replace the existing James Gillespie’s High School, as part of the City of Edinburgh Council’s Wave 3 Schools Programme. Proposals were presented at an A+DS Design Review meeting held on 22nd February 2011 in Glasgow. A+DS’s Schools programme has had some previous involvement with the project working with the City of Edinburgh Council and the Project Team on aspects of the educational brief and decant spaces.

Designs for Portobello High School, the first of five new schools to be procured as part of the Schools Programme also designed by JM Architects, were reviewed by A+DS at planning application stage in October 2010.

A+DS Views

1 General comments
1.1 We welcome the opportunity to review the developing designs for James Gillespie’s High School and thank the Project Team for their very clear presentation. We commend the Project Team and Client for their level of ambition and commitment towards procuring a high quality school to replace the existing campus on this special site within the city. We congratulate the Project Team on their designs thus far, which we feel are generally of a very high standard and have the potential to create an exemplary school. There are some aspects of the designs that we suggest would benefit from further development and we offer the following comments for consideration at this time.

2 Process & procurement
2.1 As with Portobello High School, we commend the Project Team for their commitment to a collaborative design approach, which appears exemplary in illustrating how participation with the teaching staff and community can successfully feed into the development of the project. Once again we support on-going dialogue between the Project Team, the school and other stakeholders to continue to inform the designs.

2.2 Designs for James Gillespie’s High School are at a less advanced stage than those reviewed for Portobello. We encourage learning from the outcome of the procurement of Portobello High School to help influence this project, and from other schools coming forward as part of the City’s Wave 3 Schools Programme. There is the potential to benefit in terms of cross-fertilization of ideas on spaces, materials and construction between the various schools.

2.3 We note that the Client is in active discussions with the Scottish Future Trust in the procurement of the school. It is fundamental that the Client maintains control of the procurement process to ensure that the designs do not become diluted, and that the potential evident in the current scheme can be delivered. We applaud the apparent commitment of the Client to the process.

3 Design response
3.1 Site layout / landscape
We generally support the major urban moves being proposed on the site, which draws on the existing layout of the school in proposing a number of standalone buildings situated in a campus type arrangement. However, the way in which the proposed buildings are sited currently and relate to one another, the site boundaries and the Principal’s pavilion has created a number of spaces that appear somewhat resultant and difficult to envisage as being active or enjoyable and we suggest this requires further consideration. In addition, the removal of a large section of mature trees to the east is of concern as these are a significant factor in the existing site’s cohesion and identity.

In exploring the various options for the site it would be useful to understand the reasoning behind some of the design decisions that have been made. An analysis of the successes and failings of the current campus configuration would help to make this more explicit and we suggest that, going forward, this analysis might further inform the design development of the new buildings’ relationships to each other.

How existing landscape spaces are treated within the site, and new spaces introduced, will be a significant factor in the success of the school environment. Designs for the internal courtyard spaces in the main teaching block should be incorporated into the general landscape drawings and considered as an integral part of the landscape strategy.

3.2 Access / wayfinding
We note that two main pupil access points are to be provided into the campus: a route from the west via the existing avenue that leads to the school from Whitehouse Loan, which provides an attractive and pleasant route into the campus, and an additional entrance from the north off Warrender Park Road where we understand the majority of activity is likely to emanate in terms of desire lines and pupil drop offs. In addition are two further entrance routes, via car parking from Whitehouse Loan, and a public, out of hours entrance from Lauderdale Street. It is not yet clear how these different access points will be used, and we suggest an experiential analysis of a ‘day in the life’ of the school would help to inform the design of routes and spaces throughout the site - how they would be utilised by pupils, staff, visitors and the community over the course of a typical school day and into the evening.

3.3 Pavilion building
We support in principle the proposed entrance pavilion building that would be located at the heart of the campus between the main teaching block and Brunstfield House. We see interesting potential in the building becoming a fulcrum point at the end of the pedestrian entrance into the campus from the north, to terminate this visual axis and give clarity to the central courtyard spaces. However, we are not convinced by the current proposals, particularly with regards to the proposed bridge link that would be formed between the two buildings and which appears incongruous in the scheme presented. We recognise that the Project Team is still exploring a number of options for the function and location of the building, and that its form is still developing. In considering the designs further, we suggest that the external levels might be manipulated in section to allow the buildings to connect in a more sensitive and less visually intrusive way than currently proposed.

3.4 Teaching block
The long linear teaching block responds well in urban design terms to the tenemental form of the buildings opposite, forming a hard edge to Lauderdale Street. We wonder whether there may be potential in the forming an additional pedestrian entry point, from Lauderdale Street, through the main teaching block and terminating in the proposed pavilion building. We are currently less than convinced with the proposed spaces being formed around the north edge of the block, adjacent to the proposed entrance off Warrender Park Road.

The arrangement of the block is interesting, and we are encouraged to see the school embracing a potential shift in teaching ethos towards a building that explores learning spaces in different ways. The proposed collaboration spaces linked to internal courtyards show potential and we wonder whether they could be improved by offering occasional views, and perhaps linkages, out of the building into the external shared courtyard spaces. In this respect, we suggest there may be potential in exploring whether in contrast to the hard urban edge of the block facing east, the opposite side of the block that faces inwardly into the campus could be made more fragmented to relate more specifically to ‘object’ buildings within the landscape, including Bruntsfield House. In doing so, we suggest there is potential for more meaningful external spaces to be created between the, currently slightly disparate, building elements in the internal landscape of the site.

The proposed sections through the building show potential for generating some interesting spaces, and we suggest the three dimensional design development includes not only the resolution of the briefing analysis and urban form, but also the environmental strategy.

3.5 Sports block
While the visual termination of Spottiswoode Road appears convincing as an end stop, we suggest the form of the building, and the functionality and use of the resultant external space between the main teaching block and the sports block, is unclear and requires further development. This is in contrast to the relationship between Bruntsfield House and the proposed theatre building, which appears potentially positive and interesting. In addition, we query the dynamics of an entrance to Lauderdale Street which is intended only as an out of hour’s entrance for public, non-pupil use. This appears contrary to the significance of its location.

4 Sustainability
4.1 We support the Client in their aspiration to achieve a BREEAM excellent rating for the school and note how a holistic environmental approach is being explored and tested in the teaching block in particular. We encourage an analysis of climatic elements to be developed more overtly as part of developing sustainability aspects of the project, to assist in the design of both internal and external spaces, and to make the buildings work naturally. The aforementioned analysis of a day in the life of the school could also help to inform how the school would be used over a 24-hour period, to help achieve a more energy efficient and sustainable building.

Conclusion
We commend the Client and Project Team for their high aspirations and for the clarity of their presentation. We feel that the project is potentially exemplary and that the proposed designs are generally of a high standard. A central challenge of the project moving forward will be in maintaining the open culture of the school community in a safe and secure manner within the campus approach to the layout of the various buildings within the site. Conversely, this is also what will make the project appealing and memorable and we believe that the design team are well placed to deliver the desired results.

We welcome the level of collaboration and participation with stakeholders that has been carried out throughout the project’s development. It is fundamental that the Client maintain control of the procurement process and route to ensure that the designs to do not become diluted, and that the potential for the school can be delivered. We encourage potential benefits in terms of cross-fertilization of ideas on spaces, materials and construction between the various similarly procured schools to be exploited wherever possible.

There are some aspects of the project that we suggest would benefit from further analysis, explanation and design development. The big urban moves for the school are clear; however more consideration is required with regards to the resultant spaces being formed between the proposed campus buildings and the edges of the site in order to ensure these spaces become vibrant and welcoming. Lines of existing axes might help to inform the spatial organisation of the site planning and reinforce the main spine through it.

The long teaching block shows great potential, in terms of its architectural form and spaces being generated within it, its environmental design and in exploring different teaching methodologies, and we encourage development of this block such that its relationship with the main external spaces is improved.

We support the idea of a pavilion building in principle, but note that the Project Team is currently wrestling with its form. Manipulation of existing site levels could help to improve connections between this and adjacent buildings. We look forward to seeing how this important focal building and other aspects of the project develop in due course.