The recent State Government budget has allocated funding to many schools for the construction of permanent facilities. The news has been received by these schools with a combination of relief and joy. Typical of this reaction is that of the principal of Rochester Secondary College who said that he was “over the moon, absolutely over the moon.” He went on to say , “You can’t imagine what this is going to mean to the school.” [Shepparton News, 7/5/2003]
Much of this exuberation is related to the fact that these schools will be able to rid themselves of many, if not all, of their portable buildings. The strength of emotion when schools farewell their portable buildings is strong. There are good reasons for this.
Portables are rarely regarded as part of the school. They are accepted as necessary to cope with medium term numbers in excess of the core enrolment or as temporary emergency measures but not as a significant long term component of the school infrastructure. Due to funding limitations, portables often stay around longer than intended and “wear out their welcome.”
The best of these facilities are functional – the worst, are not. They usually keep out the weather, they provide space which may or may not be adequate, but that is as far as they go. They are not designed to exude an atmosphere of, “this is a good place to be.”
It is tempting for schools not to allocate time and resources to care for portable buildings. However, they should be maintained to a minimum standard for Occupation, Health and Safety reasons. In the State system, funding for this is allocated from PRIMS.
Nevertheless, it is clearly noticeable when a school enhances these buildings by creating (for example) useable spaces between them – maybe courtyards with shade cloth and surrounding them with appropriate landscaping.
In many schools the siting of these facilities is a compromise. One of the main considerations for their location is the necessary access for trucking and/or craning them in and out. This can mean the loss of valuable recreation spaces and “portable prominence” whereby their visibility detracts from the main structure.
School masterplans should take account of the siting of semi-permanent portable buildings so that they are located in the most desirable place with due thought to the relationship they have with the external environment. State schools should be aware that there is a triennial programme for masterplan/full planning/ and construction. It is important for schools to lock themselves into this programme, even though sometimes it is the “squeaky wheel which gets the oil.”
Mr. Andrew Bunting
Director
Architectus
