Consultation on proposals to Update the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967: Analysis of Responses

3. Regulations to be retained

This chapter considers existing regulations that the Scottish Government proposes retaining. It examines proposals to retain regulations related to acoustic conditions, water supply, grant-aided schools, and kitchen premises.

Q1 - Acoustic conditions (Regulation 24): Do you agree that adding a link to Building Bulletin 93 for this Regulation adequately covers the requirements for acoustic conditions? If not, why not?

Just over three quarters (77%) of those answering Q1 agreed that adding a link to Building Bulletin 93 for this Regulation adequately covers the requirements for acoustic conditions, while 23% disagreed. Over four fifths (82%) of individuals who answered agreed. While two thirds (67%) of organisations that answered agreed, and a majority of most organisation types agreed, including 83% of local authorities, there was less support among disability organisations (22% agreed and 78% disagreed).

Just over a quarter of all respondents left an open comment in response to Q1.

Reasons for agreement

While the questions asked respondents to provide further detail if they disagreed, many of those who agreed with the proposal explained their position. Several agreed, adding a link to Building Bulletin 93 as they felt it was a good minimum standard. Some agreed with the proposal as they felt that it ensures learning spaces are appropriate for children with additional support needs.

“Yes, adding a link to Building Bulletin 93 is appropriate as it provides clear, modern standards for acoustic conditions. This ensures learning environments are suitable for all pupils, including those with additional support needs.” – Individual

Greater consideration of additional support needs

In contrast to those who agreed, several respondents disagreed that linking the regulations to Building Bulletin 93 did enough to consider the additional support needs of some pupils. They were concerned that structuring the regulation in this way meant that it would be non-statutory and that it would not explicitly address the varying requirements of different groups. This was particularly true for hearing impaired children and staff. Others felt it would not be enough for children with sensory processing needs who are sensitive to acoustics and reverberations.

“Relying solely on BB93's minimum mainstream standards fails to acknowledge… The broad and diverse listening needs of children and young people (CYP) with Special Hearing and Communication Needs (SHCN). This encompasses any level of deafness (including unilateral and mild), temporary deafness (e.g., glue ear), Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), and neurodivergent learners who struggle to listen in noise … [and] the shift in modern pedagogy towards peer-to-peer, collaborative learning. This approach generates significantly higher background noise than traditional didactic teaching, exacerbating the masking of speech for vulnerable listeners.” - British Association of Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People (BATOD)

Disagree: Space concerns

Some others mentioned concerns around open-plan layouts of newer school buildings or spaces used for multiple functions. They felt that Building Bulletin 93 did not account for contemporary school uses and designs.

“In principle, yes, but query whether the BB93 provides robust enough guidance for non-traditional learning spaces for more than one class to occupy at a time and whether BB98 is up to date in and of itself.” - SpaceZero

Concerns that Building Bulletin 93 did not measure acoustic levels in other school spaces, such as communal areas, staff areas and outdoors, were mentioned by some.

Older premises

Some respondents mentioned concerns that existing regulations were already not being met in older premises. There was concern among a few local authorities that regulations should not be applied to existing premises in the school estate. Some of these respondents highlighted the costs, resources and funding needed to ensure older buildings meet the acoustic regulations.

Other considerations

Other considerations were mentioned by some respondents. The idea that Building Bulletin 93 should be a minimum standard was mentioned by a few. Architecture and Design Scotland suggested “a cross reference with the technical guidance of PAS6463 acoustics section” and the Landscape Institute suggested considering the contribution that landscape design can provide in acoustic design. The British Association of Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People left a very detailed response with recommendations. Please see their published response for further information.

Q2 - Water supply (Regulation 25): Do you agree that this Regulation adequately covers the requirements for water supply? If not, why not?

Among those answering Q2, 80% agreed that this regulation (Water supply (Regulation 25)) adequately covers the requirements for water supply. Almost nine in ten individuals (88%) also agreed. While 62% of organisations that answered agreed, views varied considerably by type of organisation. For example, 83% of schools, parents and carer organisations and 67% of design/engineering organisations that answered agreed, while 67% of environment/nature organisations disagreed. Among local authorities that answered, 54% agreed, and 46% disagreed.

One in five of all respondents left an open comment in response to Q2.

Safety considerations

The two most prevalent themes evident in comments at Q2 were consideration of the risks of bacteria in the water supply and suggestions related to water temperature and control. These two themes were each raised by some respondents, including a mix of those who agreed or disagreed at the closed question.

A range of clarifications, specific amendments, or updates to the regulation was requested. Most commonly, some local authorities requested that the regulation refer to other relevant standards and guidance, such as CIBSE TM13 (Minimising the Risk of Legionnaires’ Disease) and HSE Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) L8 (The Control of Legionella Bacteria in Water Systems), in order to better recognise the risks to young people, vulnerable children and those with additional support needs around water supply. However, North Ayrshire Council felt that this regulation should avoid such direct links and should instead include a proviso that “good industry practice” or “guidance issued by relevant professional bodies” is adhered to. Two respondents felt the regulation should state that a cold-water supply comes from the mains rather than a water tank.

Regarding temperature controls, respondents highlighted the need to minimise the risk of scalding. A few specifically referenced Care Inspectorate guidance on this issue in nursery/primary settings and the potential risk to pupils with sensory impairments, additional support needs or disabilities. Suggestions included using mixer taps rather than separate hot and cold taps, and thermostatic controls. Conversely, Kindred Advocacy commented in relation to shower temperatures that many children with sensory difficulties will find water of 38 degrees too hot, and one individual called for drinking water to be cold rather than lukewarm.

“In 2026, hopefully mixer taps can be used rather than "separately controlled hot and cold water". Little hands quickly moving between scolding and freezing water should be a thing of the past.” - Individual

Reasons for disagreement

Some respondents disagreed that the regulation adequately covers the requirements for water supply, as they felt it did not include all the ways in which water could be used within schools. Comments included the need to consider the water supply in classrooms for activities such as science, art and sensory play, and for drinking water, water fountains and refilling water bottles. Two respondents suggested the regulation should be more specific to ensure the number of drinking water outlets is proportionate to the number of pupils in a setting. Although they agreed at the closed question, two local authorities called for clarification on sinks used for ‘general purposes’, as they are not always supplied with hot and cold water unless they are intended for handwashing.

In addition, a few organisations, including Keep Scotland Beautiful, Learning for Sustainability Scotland and Learning through Landscapes, disagreed that the regulation is sufficient and highlighted the importance of outdoor water supply so that pupils can learn in and enjoy the outdoors, as well as to support site maintenance. Landscape Institute made a similar point, though they agreed at the closed question and felt that rather than amending the regulation, “supporting guidance could usefully make clearer links between water supply, sustainable site design and the wider educational value of the school environment.”

“Water should be accessible for a variety of reasons outside of the building as well as inside. Water supply should include drinking water, water for play, particularly with the early years and primary sectors, and water for maintenance of the site, including for watering crops. External taps should be made tamper-proof or easily locked to prevent improper use and flood risk. Water collection methods such as water butts and storage tanks should also be encouraged.” – Learning through Landscapes

A few respondents felt that, while ensuring basic safety, the regulation does not meet the needs of children with additional support needs and called for a rights-based, inclusive version of the regulation that specifies, for example, accessibility requirements (height, sensory considerations, predictable locations).

Reasons for agreement

Some respondents left comments agreeing that the regulation adequately covers the requirements for water supply. While most did not elaborate beyond stating that it is important the regulation remains, East Ayrshire Council suggested that consideration could be given to referencing current Scottish Water or public health guidance to ensure alignment with contemporary sustainability and hygiene standards, and AHDS called for the regulation and guidance to be clear that local authorities must ensure safe, reliable water provision and act promptly where standards are not met.

Q3 - Grant-Aided Schools (Regulation 26): Do you agree that the new Regulations should apply to grant-aided schools? If not, why not?

Virtually all respondents who answered Q3 agreed that the new Regulations should apply to grant-aided schools. Overall, 98% agreed, as did 98% of individuals and all organisations.

One in ten of all respondents left an open comment in response to Q3.

Reasons for agreement

While the open question invited respondents who disagreed with the new regulations applying to grant-aided schools to explain why, almost all comments expressed agreement, in line with the closed question results. Most commonly, several respondents agreed because they felt it would be important for the regulations to apply to all schools, ensuring children experience the same minimum standards of school buildings regardless of how the school is funded. It was felt that this would ensure consistency and equity across Scotland. A few respondents noted this consistency was particularly important for those with additional support needs.

“A consistent baseline matters. Access to well-designed outdoor space, opportunities for play and learning in nature, and school grounds that support health, climate resilience and inclusion should not depend on governance arrangements. Applying the Regulations to grant-aided schools would help ensure that these expectations are carried through across the school estate.” – Landscape Institute

Some respondents agreed with the new regulations applying to grant-aided schools, but did not elaborate beyond there being no reason to move away from existing arrangements. Two respondents agreed but noted that investment may be required to improve schools that are currently below standard. Two respondents agreed that the regulations should apply to grant-aided schools but also called for them to apply to independent schools, again to ensure they occupy appropriate buildings.

Other considerations

One individual disagreed as they felt non-grant-aided schools should be prioritised, while another individual requested more information.

Q4 - Kitchen premises (Regulation 14): Do you agree that this Regulation can be retained? If not, why not?

The vast majority of those answering Q4 agreed that this Regulation (Kitchen premises (Regulation 14)) can be retained. Overall, 95% agreed, as did 98% of individuals and 89% of organisations. While support for retention was very high among most organisation types, it was lower among schools, parents and carer organisations (71%), design/engineering organisations (67%), and disability organisations (50%).

Just over one in ten of all respondents left a comment in response to Q3.

Reasons for agreement

Most commonly, some respondents agreed with retaining this regulation, given the increasing need for kitchen premises in schools to support the continuing rollout of free school meals provision and breakfast clubs. AHDS noted that the regulation must be supported by sufficient investment to ensure kitchen premises are able to deliver these expanded provisions.

“As recognised in the consultation paper, Scotland is on the cusp of major changes to its school food system. The Scottish Government has committed to delivering universal breakfast provision in primary and special schools from August 2027, backed by significant funding (£18 million in 2026/27 and £44 million in each of 2027/28 and 2028/29 as set out in the recently published spending review). This policy trajectory relies on schools having the kitchen capacity to produce, stage, and safely serve breakfast at scale every morning. Failing to retain Regulation 14 at such a pivotal time would run counter to the Government’s own ambitions and risk undermining the rollout of these commitments.” – Magic Breakfast

Some other respondents, primarily local authorities, noted that the exclusion of nursery schools should be reconsidered where ELC is delivered alongside primary schools. While most respondents raising this theme agreed with retaining the regulation at the closed question, two respondents disagreed, given they felt this aspect needed to be reconsidered. More specifically, two respondents suggested that the wording “other than a nursery school” should be removed from the regulation.

“The regulation can broadly be retained; however, Falkirk Council considers that the exclusion of nursery schools should be reviewed where Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) is co-located with primary schools, to ensure food safety and operational consistency. In addition, where ELC is co-located, the regulation should explicitly recognise lifecycle, maintenance and compliance costs (e.g. allergen management, equipment servicing and replacement cycles) to ensure affordability and safe operation over time.” – Falkirk Council

Other reasons for agreement, each mentioned by a small number of respondents, included the need for kitchen premises to give children and young people the opportunity to engage in the preparation and serving of food, to learn about food in the context of health and wellbeing, and to ensure that food is prepared in safe and clean environments, including meeting allergen and religious requirements. One individual questioned whether the regulation would also apply to hostel premises attached to schools, such as in the highlands and islands.

Considerations for those with additional support needs

A few respondents, including a mix of those who agreed and disagreed with the closed question, highlighted how the application of this regulation could impact children and young people with additional support needs. Three respondents outlined some of the challenges that pupils with additional support needs face in kitchen and dining areas, such as sensory sensitivities, anxiety around food, or medical and dietary requirements. Given this, they called for updating the regulation to ensure that dining and kitchen spaces are designed to support all pupils’ access to food as well as their wellbeing. In addition, two respondents noted that the noise and disruption from construction and refurbishment of school premises can impact deaf learners and those with additional support needs, and called for the regulation to minimise disruption.

“To align with UNCRC [United Nations Commission on the Rights of the Child] rights and modern inclusive design, the regulation should be updated to mandate:

Sensory Regulation: Design strategies to mitigate elevated noise, kitchen odours, and harsh lighting, including the provision of quieter or alternative dining spaces.

Physical Accessibility & Safety: Implementation of accessible kitchen and counter layouts, safe circulation routes for mobility needs, and allergen-safe preparation areas.

Operational Predictability: Flexible serving arrangements that reduce crowding and unpredictable queuing to support student well-being and routine.

Environmental Integration: Better alignment with outdoor social spaces to ensure all pupils can participate in the dining experience safely and comfortably.

Since most ASN pupils are educated in mainstream schools, these updates are essential to ensure equitable access to food, well-being, and social participation.” – REPAIR (Edinburgh) Network