Telling the Teacher
This article also appears in the current edition of Architects Journal
In more than thirty years of handling claims against Architects, I have been struck by the high incidence of disputes surrounding doctors’ surgeries and education establishments. In both cases, one is dealing with educated Clients who are used to having to rely upon their own judgement and to make decisions that will affect large numbers of people, but whose expertise is not in the area of construction.
The Government’s Academy initiatives and the wedding of public and private funding in this sector thrust schools projects into the limelight two decades ago, but education projects have always represented a particular challenge to construction teams- with normal pressures such as time constraints, limited budget and the presence of deleterious materials (a very common occurrence in the refurbishment of 1930s- 1970s schools) assuming a heightened importance because of the involvement of children. An understanding of the peculiar quirks of education projects and of the reasons for the frequent problems offers Architects an opportunity to make sensible arrangements designed to protect them from unjustified attack.
As with any other project, education commissions have the best chance of succeeding if they are set up properly. This will mean that the Architect should avoid receiving instructions by committee; often a selection of well-intentioned lay benefactors, such as School governors, together with the bursar and head teacher, will be tasked with delivering the finished project. The Architect should insist on instructions being routed through a single representative, to avoid having to pick its way through often contradictory messages received from the Client body. Any power struggle as to whether the Head Teacher should have final say over the Governors, or whether the Bursar- with a more detailed knowledge of the finances, should hold sway over the head teacher, need to be resolved ahead of issuing any instructions to the Architect, for the benefit of both Client and Architect.
Space is likely to be at a premium at these frequently over-crowded establishments and there will be a wish to maximise the ambitious use of every area of Site. What is more the students will be robust and unforgiving “ end-users” whose activities will demand a lot from their environment.
Both these factors underline the need for the Architect to make proper allowance for time necessarily spent agreeing as clear and detailed a set of Employers’ Requirements as possible, The aim is to have a Scheme that has been properly thought through in advance, agreed at both Client and Consultant level, for the best and most cost-effective use of the areas, in a bid to minimise Client changes once the Project is on Site.
The Architect also needs to be particularly clear in its Appointment what services are Basic and what would involve separate remuneration. A School Client’s enthusiasm to reflect the myriad views and requirements of its diverse Body very often leads to variations and counter variations issued to the Architect, without an appreciation of the impact either on building costs or on consultant fees. Where such instructions are in the offing- despite the best efforts at arriving at a finalised Brief- the Architect must make clear in advance the likely additional costs implications, to have the debate before the work is instructed.
All of this of course has general application and is not peculiar to education commissions. However Architects need to be aware that education projects carry a heightened risk. School spending is perennially in the headlines, and buildings for higher education are expected to showcase the talents of those for whom they have been built; funding is always tight and under scrutiny; the Client body will frequently be disparate and divided. Through proper planning and firm leadership from the professional best placed to provide it, the project has the best opportunity of avoiding a descent from ideological flagship into rancorous dispute.
For more information, please contact Mark Klimt, Partner, on 020 7280 8802
This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.