ROUND TABLE REVIEW: EXPLORING SOLUTIONS FOR INCLUSIVE & SENSORY DESIGN IN EDUCATION
27
SHARING LESSONS FROM SEND SCHOOLS Ideas from experts included learnings on design from SEND schools which could be applied for mainstream settings
a classroom layout may be a horseshoe for different needs and user groups, it’s a real struggle for behaviour management because students are facing each other.” White commented that a solution to this was furniture that was fl exible and easy to move. In terms of offi cial guidance, Building Bulletin 102 (Design for Disabled Children and Children with Special Educational Needs) has been replaced by BB104 – a more streamlined document that offers less descriptive narrative and, in some areas, reduced space standards. Claire Barton, a co-author of BB102, explained that while the updated guidance provides a simplifi ed framework, it also places greater responsibility on architects to advocate for what is needed. “Because of the way procurement works, we often have to work harder to convince contractors of the importance of certain design elements,” she said.
Barton added that these bulletins are not the only briefi ng documents used on projects, but emphasised that “there is still more to do to ensure that the initial briefi ng process properly enables us to design the best possible school.” Jean Hewitt, inclusive design expert at consultant Buro Happold, explained how the PAS 6463 standard she developed as technical author (working with a steering group of experts in 2022 on design for neurodiversity in general buildings not only schools), had achieved plenty of traction in the built environment sector. Other delegates gave plaudits to the document; Zane Putne of Noviun Architects said PAS 6463 has been “fantastic,“ and contrasted it with BB104 which “concentrated more on area recommendations,” whereas BB102 is “still being used to understand the intricacies of the various cohorts.” Claire Barton called PAS 6463 “a great document, one of the few we can hang onto.” Hewitt said that in writing the standard, working with the steering group, a key aspect was that “places where people learn
were top of the list for neurodivergence.” She also contributed to a less detailed document to help estates directors in higher education to better understand designing for neurodiversity, but said there was a “huge gap” to close in terms of creating better environments.
Design (and codesign) challenges Tamsin Thomas of Design Engine highlighted a major design challenge for architects approaching SEND projects, namely both the diverse range of needs meaning that spaces had to be carefully balanced to not favour one user group, but also the differences between neurodiversity and physical disability. “How do we provide spaces that allow everyone to have a good, positive experience without undermining those really specifi c needs?” Terry White asserted that design had not kept pace with the improving pedagogical approaches to mainstream and SEND education. “Everybody talks about skills for the future, but actually we’re not good about how we translate that into the design of spaces for learning, and especially for young people who are challenged with SEND.” He described “the large numbers of pupils who are still not achieving their full potential in secondary schools, saying that part of the failures to integrate SEND into the mainstream was because, we’re not making learning personal or more engaging.” He said that in order to roll out better approaches, the industry “has to share more; we have a massive amount of research and intelligence on learning, sometimes it’s siloed.”
The group also agreed on the necessity of including champions for inclusive design in projects (as recommended in the RIBA’s Inclusive Design Overlay to the Plan of Work). Inclusive design specialist Kathryn Gundry of Motionspot said that they were taking the role “on most jobs, embedded from Stage 0 to Stage 7, going
ADF SEPTEMBER 2025
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
