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

4. Regulations to be updated

This chapter presents the analysis of the consultation questions that asked respondents about regulations the Scottish Government recommends retaining and updating. This includes questions about outdoor environments, the accommodation metrics, toilet and washing facilities, medical inspection rooms, wellbeing spaces and digital infrastructure.

Overarching themes

As this set of questions focused on amendments to regulations, similar concerns about the implementation of these changes were mentioned at each question, particularly by local authorities. To limit repetition, these overarching themes are listed at the start of this section, but the reader can assume that they were raised in relation to all regulations that are proposed to be updated.

Concerns around scope of application of regulations

At every question in the section, some respondents, almost all of whom were local authorities, raised a concern about whether the proposed updates to the existing regulations would be applicable only to newly built schools or across the entire school estate. They asked for clarity in the legislation to ensure that new regulations are not applicable to existing buildings across the school estate.

Costs and feasibility

Some respondents raised concerns about funding for unexpected costs associated with ensuring existing and older properties within the school estate meet new regulations, and the costs of adapting new building plans to meet updated regulations. They also noted that, in some cases, the changes may not be feasible, particularly those around the outdoor environments and accommodation metrics, as space for existing school buildings may not always be adjustable. Where specific cost concerns were raised, these are presented under the relevant question in this chapter.

Q5 - Outdoor education and recreational areas (Regulation 20): Should this regulation be retained and be updated to require schools to have a mix of outdoor environments to further support the delivery of learning, play, sport and access to nature?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	67	5	27
All answering	192	93	7	-
Individuals	131	98	2	-
Organisations:	61	82	18	-
- Local Authority	22	64	36	-
- Equalities	4	75	25	-
- Disability	3	100	0	-
- Design/Engineering	8	88	13	-
- Schools, parents and carers	8	100	0	-
- Environment/Nature	8	88	13	-
- Education union/rep body	3	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	1	100	0	-
- Other	4	100	0	-

Over nine in ten (93%) of those answering agreed that Regulation 20 (Outdoor education and recreational areas) be retained and be updated to require schools to have a mix of outdoor environments to further support the delivery of learning, play, sport and access to nature. Almost all (98%) individuals who answered agreed, as did four fifths (82%) of organisations. While most types of organisations recorded high levels of agreement, support was lower among local authorities that answered, at 64%.

One quarter of all respondents provided a response to the open question.

General agreement

While the question asked for further detail if respondents disagreed with retaining the regulation, several respondents used the open element of this question to reiterate their support for the regulation. They noted the value of outdoor spaces for students and a few detailed studies that show the positive impact that outdoor play, learning and sport have on school-aged children. A few respondents specifically noted the importance of outdoor space for children who have additional support needs.

“A renewed focus on Outdoor Learning is expected as part of the ongoing Curriculum Improvement Cycle… Therefore, the statutory regulations which govern the allocation of outdoor space in schools should be updated to ensure parity of outdoor learning opportunity for all learners, no matter the socio-economic circumstances of the setting, nor the placement of the setting in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.” - Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS)

Concerns and considerations

Some respondents agreed with retaining the regulation, but caveated their support with further considerations. These considerations were often the same reasons that other respondents cited as reasons they disagreed with retention. This section presents the range of concerns and considerations raised by this mix of respondents.

Covered spaces

Some respondents, almost all local authorities, felt that the provision for covered spaces in the proposed regulations may be unnecessary or unachievable for many schools. They felt that outdoor learning and time spent outdoors did not require a shelter and that regulating 25% of the outdoor space to be covered was too much.

“Providing 25% of outdoor space as covered outdoor area could have a significant impact on the ambience and experience of outdoor spaces, diminishing elements known to benefit health and wellbeing, such as sky-views, natural surroundings, presence of vegetation, maximising natural light and offering a contrast to the artificial built environment of the building.” - NatureScot

Environmental and biodiversity concerns

The importance of nature-rich spaces within school grounds was emphasised by some respondents. They felt that it was important that regulations include a provision about enhanced biodiversity and natural play spaces. There was a concern that, without further guidance, schools may use cheaper artificial surfaces, which they felt do not provide the same outdoor experience as those that are nature rich. A few suggested including regulations around the ratio of different types of surfaces required in the school grounds, although more details about grass surfaces are discussed in the next question.

“There is a case for enhancing the regulation to stipulate the minimum proportion of green and natural spaces compared to a synthetic space. Without a more specific regulation, there is a risk that outdoor environments become increasingly artificial.” – Individual

Flexibility

In contrast, some respondents proposed fewer rigid requirements for how the space is composed and used. They felt that, particularly in urban settings, flexibility with the school grounds was necessary to reflect site constraints and ensure the grounds are used functionally for as many students as possible.

“We acknowledge, as raised by Learning for Landscapes, that the broader issue is that spaces should be flexible and function well for the needs of educators and pupils. Highlighting specific needs in the Regulation - that there should be areas for social dining, outdoor learning, active spaces for sport - may limit ambition for outdoor spaces.” - Keep Scotland Beautiful

Size

Some respondents raised concerns with the metric used to calculate the amount of outdoor space. Almost all of these respondents felt that the designated area of 1m² per pupil for “External Enhanced Area” was too small. NatureScot provided an example from Germany where the range of allocated outdoor space ranges from 5-9m² per pupil.

One respondent felt that the allocated outdoor play space was too large and costly.

“Whilst schools are most likely to already have enhanced outdoor / playground areas as per the definition provided (most likely specialist sports surfaces/MUGAS etc), it may be the case that the size of that area is not compliant with the proposed regulative area. This would result in the requirement for significant capital expenditure to extend or provide additional such areas to meet the legislation, across an education estate.” - East Renfrewshire Council

Other considerations

Questions and suggestions were raised by some respondents. These included, from most to least mentioned:

• A few respondents highlighted the importance of delineated play spaces, suggesting the need for what Heads of Sensory Service VI calls “tactile boundaries between zones”.
• Including a provision around the use of school grounds as a community asset was mentioned by two organisations.
• One respondent asked how these regulations would be applied to special school settings and early learning settings.
• Another respondent suggested the language in the regulation about the use of the space be changed from ‘could allow for recreation and relaxing, outdoor learning and sporting activities’ to ‘should allow’.
• An individual recommended including a qualitative aspect to the regulations, where more detail was given on how the spaces should be used and what the spaces should be like, rather than just space requirements.
• Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland noted that regulations should state that spaces are adjacent to schools to ensure maximum use.

Q6 - Sites for playing fields (Regulation 8): Do you agree that if there is a mixture of grass pitches and synthetic pitches, then the area required in some circumstances can be less than that currently defined for grass pitches? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	48	19	33
All answering	176	72	28	-
Individuals	125	71	29	-
Organisations:	51	73	27	-
- Local Authority	22	82	18	-
- Equalities	3	100	0	-
- Disability	2	50	50	-
- Design/Engineering	7	86	14	-
- Schools, parents and carers	6	83	17	-
- Environment/Nature	6	0	100	-
- Education union/rep body	2	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	1	0	100	-
- Other	2	100	0	-

Among those answering Q6, 72% agreed that if there is a mixture of grass pitches and synthetic pitches, then the area required in some circumstances can be less than that currently defined for grass pitches. Similar levels of agreement were recorded by both individuals (71%) and organisations (73%) that answered. However, very mixed views were recorded by type of organisation. While over four fifths of several types of organisations agreed, including 82% of local authorities, all environment/nature organisations, one children’s rights organisation and one disability organisation disagreed.

Three in ten of all respondents provided a response to the open question.

Environmental concerns

The most prevalent theme, raised by several respondents, was a concern about the environmental impacts of the proposal. As with other questions, this was raised both by respondents who agreed or disagreed at the closed question. Respondents raised concerns about the use of synthetic surfaces generally. One of the main concerns was around biodiversity, and the negative impact of synthetic surfaces on plants and animals.

Those who caveated their agreement suggested there should be more clarity regarding the types of synthetic surfaces that would be allowed, emphasising the importance of avoiding microplastic shedding or materials that may be harmful for students.

“The climate and sustainability impacts of more synthetic pitches need also to be considered. This should include manufacture to end of life, including maintenance and replacement implications. In sunlight, even in the spring, this type of surface can reach unbearable temperatures and, due to its size and use, as is it unable to be fully shaded. The development of more sustainable surfaces in the future should be recognised and supported here.” - Learning through Landscapes

Concerns around the use of space

Concern that the proposal was suggesting spaces should primarily be used for sporting activities was raised by several respondents. They expressed the view that outdoor space should be available for different purposes, including learning, wellbeing, and informal play, and worried that changes that allowed for a higher ratio of synthetic pitches suggested prioritisation of sporting activities.

“Often, schools are in tight locations, and the sports provision should be more flexible to allow more appropriate design on a case-by-case basis. Sports should not 'push out' other outdoor play opportunities just because they take up more space.” – Individual

Some respondents were unsure why this was being asked, as they felt the use of synthetic surfacing should not impact the regulated size at all.

A few organisations raised specific concerns around space. EIS provided a detailed response, which questioned the logic of attributing different area regulations for all-school campuses compared to separate primary and secondary schools. They felt this could disadvantage primary school students in all-school campuses. Homes for Scotland suggested a new intermediate measure for mid-sized schools.

“We suggest adding an intermediate position for schools with a capacity of 451-550 pupils with a grass only provision of 0.5 hectares. We also suggest adding a provision for schools with 551 or more pupils, with a grass only provision of 0.6 hectares.” – Homes for Scotland

Flexibility

Some respondents supported the proposal as they felt that it provided flexibility, allowing schools to use outdoor spaces for multiple purposes, including sports and physical education, while keeping space available for outdoor learning and play.

“Allowing a reduced total area where there is a mix of grass and synthetic pitches is reasonable, provided that the overall standard still guarantees sufficient, safe, and accessible play and sports space for all pupils. The key concern for school leaders is that flexibility is not used to justify a net loss of meaningful outdoor activity space on already tight sites. The Regulation should therefore emphasise fitness for purpose and pupil access rather than simply total square metre figures.” – AHDS

sportscotland guidance

Some organisations referred to and supported guidance released by sportscotland regarding the size and surface of the pitch, while other respondents felt sportscotland should be consulted on any changes to regulations. sportscotland provided a detailed response, and their published response can be referred to directly alongside this report. They felt that alongside explicit regulations about the types and dimensions of pitches, careful consideration also must be given to community usage of the space outside of school hours.

“We would request that the final regulations (or accompanying guidance) strongly recommend that careful consideration is given to the exact mix of pitches provided in terms of dimensions and surface type. This should also include consideration of wider sporting community need, and how this links to the active spaces referred to in Regulation 20.” - sportscotland

Other considerations

A few respondents raised on further considerations. Each was suggested by one or two respondents, and included from most to least prevalent:

• Consideration of area regulations on a case-by-case basis, particularly when reflecting upon the impact synthetic pitches may have on inclusion and accessibility.
• Use of Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment to ensure the change of area meets Article 31 of the UNCRC.
• Clarity around how this will be implemented in the case of shared campuses where synthetic surfaces may not be appropriate for nursery or primary provision.

Q7 - Educational accommodation in primary schools and secondary schools (Regulations 9 and 10): Do you agree that accommodation metrics is an appropriate method to calculate the educational accommodation required? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	47	17	36
All answering	169	73	27	-
Individuals	117	81	19	-
Organisations:	52	56	44	-
- Local Authority	23	48	52	-
- Equalities	3	67	33	-
- Disability	4	50	50	-
- Design/Engineering	8	63	38	-
- Schools, parents and carers	7	57	43	-
- Environment/Nature	2	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	1	0	100	-
- Children's Rights	1	100	0	-
- Other	3	67	33	-

Almost three quarters (73%) of those answering Q7 agreed that accommodation metrics are an appropriate method to calculate the educational accommodation required, while 27% disagreed. While 81% of individuals who answered agreed, organisations recorded lower levels of agreement (56%). Views were mixed across most types of organisations; for example, 48% of local authorities that answered agreed compared to 52% that disagreed.

Just over one quarter of respondents left an open response at Q7.

General agreement

While the question did not ask those agreeing to qualify their quantitative response, some respondents reiterated their support for the proposal. Respondents supported the proposed regulation’s acknowledgement that the use of spaces in schools is changing and how these changes can assist in inclusion.

Respondents who agreed also caveated their agreement with some recommendations or concerns, as detailed below.

Metrics and calculation concerns

Among those who disagreed at the closed question, many highlighted concerns around the metrics and calculations for accommodation. Respondents felt that the accommodation metrics are too restrictive and do not adequately consider the way schools and children use different spaces. Concerns were raised that meeting the regulations could impact shared spaces or circulation spaces, which may hinder the movement throughout the school.

“My view is that the current accommodation metrics are inadequate and that primary school-age children, in particular, need more space for better learning. There needs to be space to get away from being confined, to have time away from the larger group, to breathe, run, climb, swing, etc.” – Individual

Other respondents raised concerns about the proposed scaling, with some noting grey areas where schools of a certain size may be disadvantaged. For a few respondents, this was also a concern for small-roll schools where the scale may have impractical and unintended consequences.

“The scaling for these is not fluid. An example of this for the primary sector shows that a 7 class single stream school would be larger than a 9 class double stream school; therefore, the recommendation is flawed on this basis.” – North Lanarkshire Council - Forward Planning and Specification Team

Some respondents, including a mix of those who agreed or disagreed at the closed question, recommended other ways to calculate the size of educational accommodation. These included consideration of multi-use rooms within the metric and a cross-reference to Building Bulletin 103. One individual noted specific situations where more space is required, such as in Design and Technology workshops.

Flexibility

Many respondents mentioned the importance of flexibility over strict metrics. These respondents felt that schools needed to be responsive to the different needs of their environments, locations, student populations, and different class or course needs. This was also raised by several respondents who described the requirements of students with additional support needs.

“Accommodation metrics are a pragmatic way to calculate space requirements for new and substantially refurbished schools, but they must be applied with professional judgement rather than as a rigid formula. Metrics should explicitly take account of small schools, composite classes, ASN provision and nurture spaces. The Regulations should be clear that responsibility for achieving these metrics sits with authorities as asset owners.” - AHDS

A few other respondents felt that the metrics did not consider the role of schools as community hubs. City of Edinburgh Council also raised concern that the inflexibility of the metrics countered other proposals around local authorities’ obligations.

“The inclusion of an 'education accommodation' metric in the School Premises Regulations is inconsistent with other proposals' approach to local authority obligations. Other proposals include, for example, the removal of site size regulations so that the site selection can be determined by the local authority based on the type of educational provision and the needs of the community.” - City of Edinburgh Council (Officers)

Clarifications and other considerations

Several respondents asked for clarification on certain terms or ideas, or provided recommendations they felt should be considered in the regulation. One respondent each mentioned the inclusion of study spaces, outside classrooms and sports pitches in the metric. Other suggestions from one respondent each included:

• A review of existing LEIP-funded buildings.
• Ensuring a clear definition of ‘playing fields’.
• Clarity on research conducted into the sufficiency of current school accommodation metrics.

Q8 - Sanitary accommodation for pupils (Regulations 15 and 16): Do you agree that the number of appliances per pupil as set out as above are still appropriate?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	48	19	33
All answering	176	72	28	-
Individuals	129	76	24	-
Organisations:	47	62	38	-
- Local Authority	23	65	35	-
- Equalities	6	83	17	-
- Disability	3	0	100	-
- Design/Engineering	4	25	75	-
- Schools, parents and carers	6	83	17	-
- Environment/Nature	1	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	2	0	100	-
- Children's Rights	0	-	-	-
- Other	2	100	0	-

Overall, seven in ten (72%) of those answering Q8 agreed that the number of appliances per pupil as set out under Regulations 15 and 16 is still appropriate, while 28% disagreed. Agreement was higher among individuals (76%) compared to organisations (62%). Disagreement was particularly strong among the small number of disability organisations, design/engineering organisations and education unions that answered.

One quarter of all respondents answered the open question at Q8. Those who agreed with the closed question often added caveats similar to the reasons others gave for disagreement.

Toilet allocation

While not directly addressing the number of appliances, the most prevalent theme at Q8 was the division of appliances between girls’, boys’, disabled and gender neutral toilets. Of these respondents, many agreed that the previous regulations were out of date, particularly the ratio of division for boys’ toilets (half), the lack of specification regarding girls’ toilets, and the lack of detail about gender neutral and accessible facilities.

However, some respondents expressed the view that further detail was needed to regulate specifically for the number of appliances for girls, boys, gender neutral and accessible appliances. Within this, a range of views were noted:

• Some respondents felt that there should be no division, and that all toilets should be self-contained and non-gender specific. They felt this would better meet UNCRC standards for inclusion, privacy and dignity.
• Some other respondents felt that accessible or disabled toilets need to be distinct from any gender neutral or staff toilet provision.
• A few respondents felt that girls need a higher ratio of appliances than boys, as they do not use urinals, often spend more time waiting for toilets, and spend more time in toilets if menstruating.
• Two individuals did not believe there needed to be any gender-neutral provision in the regulation.

Flexibility based on schools’ needs or pupil age was also mentioned. Two organisations supported the flexibility offered by the proposed regulation to meet unique school needs, whether that was to provide gender neutral provision within the number of appliances per pupil specified, or higher numbers of accessible toilets if needed.

“Falkirk Council supports a baseline minimum for toilet provision, with flexibility to deliver a mix of facility types informed by consultation with school communities.” - Falkirk Council

Highland Council suggested that larger facilities in heavily used parts of the school be split by gender, but that “where pupils may use toilets less frequently, it may be more appropriate to have a spread of unisex accessible facilities to provide more flexibility”. One individual felt that all facilities in the infant school (P1 and P2) should be gender neutral so “our children learn to socialise with other boys and girls on an equal basis”.

More appliances

The need for more appliances was mentioned by some respondents. These respondents felt that the number of appliances allocated under the updated regulation would not adequately ensure dignity, privacy, safeguarding and children’s rights, particularly at times of peak demand and in larger schools.

“When a school of 600 pupils are all on break at the same time and only have 12 toilets to use this isn't realistic” - Individual

Kindred Advocacy and AHDS also specifically mentioned that the regulation may not result in sufficient provision for disabled children or children with additional support needs. Kindred Advocacy emphasised that the regulations did not account for any special schools which may have different appliance allocation needs than other schools.

“They do not reflect the complexity of toileting and continence needs now present in mainstream and special settings, nor the impact of larger roll sizes and campus‑style buildings. From an AHDS perspective, updated standards should set higher, more flexible ratios, require consideration of layout and travel distance, and explicitly recognise the needs of pupils with ASN who may need more time, privacy or support to use facilities safely and with dignity.” - AHDS

Two respondents felt that only quantifying the number of appliances is not enough to ensure that toilet facilities are appropriate for children with additional support needs. They suggested a qualitative element to the regulations that described how accessible toilets should be designed to ensure that they meet the needs of all children. This is discussed in greater detail at the next question.

Urinal provision

Some respondents, a mix of individuals, local authorities and organisations, reiterated their agreement that provision of urinals should be amended, expressing the view that toilet cubicles are more versatile, and noting that a few local authorities have indicated they are already moving away from using urinals.

"Small boys are not all confident in the use of individual urinals, so the option of toilet cubicles is important for them" - Individual

Fewer appliances

A few respondents, all of whom were local authorities, felt that the minimum requirements proposed by the regulations were too high. They felt that the minimum requirements should be kept as they were previously, as this approach is still working efficiently. One local authority felt that basing the provision on ‘peak-load’ usage led to over-provision of facilities, leading to greater maintenance costs.

General agreement

Agreement that the previous regulations need to be updated was mentioned by a few who did not caveat their agreement further.

Q9 - Sanitary accommodation for pupils (Regulations 15 and 16): Do you agree that these proposals cover the modern requirements for toilet and washing facilities? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	17	65	18
All answering	216	20	80	-
Individuals	161	17	83	-
Organisations:	55	29	71	-
- Local Authority	22	36	64	-
- Equalities	10	10	90	-
- Disability	3	0	100	-
- Design/Engineering	4	25	75	-
- Schools, parents and carers	7	57	43	-
- Environment/Nature	2	50	50	-
- Education union/rep body	2	0	100	-
- Children's Rights	2	0	100	-
- Other	3	33	67	-

Among those answering Q9, four fifths (80%) disagreed that the proposals cover the modern requirements for toilet and washing facilities, and 20% agreed. Disagreement was recorded across most respondent types, including 83% of individuals and 71% of organisations, as well as 64% of local authorities and 90% of equalities organisations. Schools, parents and carer organisations that answered were the only group to record a majority in favour of the proposals (57%).

Just under three quarters of all respondents left a comment at this open question, with a range of reasons for disagreeing noted by respondents.

Access for transgender students

The most prevalent theme at Q9, raised by over half of those who left a comment, was that the regulations need to clarify access for transgender students to toilet and washing facilities.

“The regulations MUST be explicit … to prevent exclusion of trans and non-binary pupils from using appropriate facilities. This has been challenged in court previously and must be spelt out in the rules to prevent confusion and future litigation.” – Individual

However, views were mixed in terms of how access could be achieved. Many of these respondents supported having a specific number of gender-neutral toilets. A suggestion proposed by a few others was that all toilet and washing facilities should be private and non-gendered, to allow all children to access all spaces.

Conversely, many other respondents expressed a concern that gender-neutral facilities forced transgender students to publicly identify as transgender before they may be comfortable or ready to do so. Some respondents detailed their own experiences, or the experiences of friends or family members who identify as transgender. These comments highlighted concerns around bullying, feelings of shame, and that transgender students, without the correct support, may avoid drinking or eating throughout the school day to avoid using the toilet facilities in school.

“In my own experience, trans people would rather not use the toilet than face the shame, teasing and bullying at being made to go to one that does not assign with their gender. Even when there was a gender neutral toilet, it was far from most of my classes so there was not time to reach it and it still felt humiliating to have to cross the school to use it when no one else did.” – Individual

Sex-defined separation of toilet and washing facilities

Many respondents felt that greater clarity was needed in the regulations to ensure that use of toilet and washing facilities is based on sex at birth, rather than gender. These respondents felt the regulations did not specify clearly enough who could use which facilities, and as a result, they were breaching the safety, dignity and privacy of students.

“No, they do NOT adequately protect single-sex spaces. They must explicitly require separate toilets and changing areas by sex. Mixed-sex should only ever be optional, not a replacement.” – Individual

Some individuals and organisations noted that private washing facilities were particularly necessary for menstruating girls who may need to clean hygiene products. One organisation suggested providing disabled facilities that can be separated by sex.

Concerns about disabled toilet and washing facilities

Several respondents felt that the proposed regulation did not go far enough to ensure the needs of disabled and neurodivergent children are met. Some of these respondents described toilets as high-stress environments for children with sensory sensitivities. They recommended accounting for noise levels, lighting, reduced crowding and greater privacy in accessing the facilities in the regulations. Hoists, rails and required clearances were recommended for inclusion by a few to ensure all children could use accessible toilets.

“To further develop the accessibility of school premises, the Scottish Government should consider the inclusion of Changing Places Toilets within reformed regulations. While the proposals recognise children with additional needs and toilet requirements; Changing Places Toilets consider the space, height and additional facility requirements to ensure toilets support those with a range of additional needs and help unpaid carers to provide care effectively” – National Carer Organisation

Safeguarding

Safeguarding issues were mentioned by several respondents. This included some respondents who thought that single occupancy toilets and washing facilities, including handwashing facilities, were the best way to safeguard children and young people and meet UNCRC standards.

“You need to make one room. Doors that go all the way up. Basins inside. That’s what everyone would like. Everything’s in the cubicle that you need.” – YAG member, Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland

Some other respondents raised concerns about unmonitored spaces and the potential for them to enable negative behaviours, such as bullying, vaping and self-harm. These respondents felt it was important to have supervised wash zones or open plan spaces, which allowed for passive supervision, which they noted were recommended in British Standards.

For similar reasons, such as safeguarding, dignity and privacy, some respondents – most of whom were local authorities – supported the move away from urinals.

"Urinals are not part of the modern requirement for toilets. Consideration needs to be given to privacy and dignity for boys as well as girls. Accordingly, the removal of a requirement for urinals is welcomed." - City of Edinburgh Council (Officers)

In contrast, a few respondents supported maintaining minimum regulations for urinals due to their perceived cleanliness and efficiency.

Shower concerns

A few respondents highlighted a concern that the regulation for shower facilities is set to start at age 11 rather than at secondary school. As some pupils in P7 are 11, they felt it may require primary schools to provide showers where it is not appropriate or needed. North Ayrshire Council felt that the shower provision was also higher than needed, as in their experience, showers are not often used during the school day. They noted it would increase the maintenance obligations for the school and local authority.

A small number of respondents felt that the number of shower facilities should be decided by the local authority based on the needs of each school. A few others asked for clarification of the ratio of showers to be based on young people engaged in physical education classes at any given time, rather than the whole school population.

Alternative suggestions

Other considerations for toilet and washing facilities were proposed by some respondents. These included, from most to least prevalent, requests for:

• Consideration of not only the number of available facilities, but also their location throughout the school.
• A complete, risk-assessed management plan for any changes to the facilities.
• Alignment with the current version of the Non-Domestic Technical Handbook, which provides guidance on aligning with the standards set in the Building (Scotland) Regulations.
• Consideration of gender-neutral facilities in small schools.
• Consideration of disabled-access changing and shower facilities.
• Clear national guidance for changing areas, including ensuring that gender neutral showers have access to gender neutral changing areas.
• More qualitative standards, as without them, it was felt that the quality of school facilities would result in a postcode lottery, leaving some schools, such as those in older buildings, without facilities that meet standards of dignity and privacy.
• Facilities separated by age on integrated campuses.

Q10 - Medical inspection and restroom accommodation (Regulation 18): Do you agree that this covers the requirements for medical inspection and restroom accommodation? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	53	11	36
All answering	169	83	17	-
Individuals	123	91	9	-
Organisations:	46	61	39	-
- Local Authority	23	48	52	-
- Equalities	4	100	0	-
- Disability	2	50	50	-
- Design/Engineering	4	75	25	-
- Schools, parents and carers	7	86	14	-
- Environment/Nature	1	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	3	33	67	-
- Children's Rights	0	-	-	-
- Other	2	50	50	-

Among those answering Q10, four fifths (82%) agreed that the proposed changes to Regulation 18 covers the requirements for medical inspection and restroom accommodation, while 17% disagreed. Most (91%) individuals who answered agreed, but agreement was lower among organisations (61%). Views varied by type of organisation; while at least half of most groups agreed, local authorities that answered expressed mixed opinions, with 48% agreeing and 52% disagreeing.

Just under one fifth of respondents left an open response at Q10.

Fit for purpose

The most prevalent theme was respondents highlighting the importance of ensuring that medical inspection and restroom accommodation remain fit for purpose. This theme was mentioned both by those who disagreed with the proposed changes and by those who agreed but caveated their support with this consideration.

Of these respondents, some felt that the medical inspection and restroom accommodation, as proposed, did not meet the requirements of children with additional and complex support needs. They felt the regulations should be explicit on how these rooms will be inclusive, such as equipment provision or sensory design, and ensure accessibility. Others felt that the reference in the regulation to regular medical inspections was outdated and would require updating to ensure rooms are designed with modern requirements in mind.

Space concerns

Some respondents felt the regulation could be onerous or unfeasible for some schools, particularly smaller schools where space concerns were an issue, larger schools where one room may not be enough for the number of pupils, rural schools and schools in older buildings. They felt it may not be practical to have specific regulations because of this.

“Partially agree. Expanding to include mental health or sensory spaces will require specialist finishes, acoustic treatments, and adaptable furniture, adding to capital and maintenance budgets. It also needs to reflect the size of the school, as in a medium to large school, one medical room is not enough.” - West Dunbartonshire Council

Other considerations

Other recommendations and considerations were mentioned by some respondents. They included, from most to least prevalent:

• Creation of single-sex treatment provision.
• Consideration around storing of medicines.
• Ensuring established cleaning, ventilation and supervision procedures if toilets are to be used by sick children, particularly an ability to monitor if a child collapses.
• Suggestion to change language around ‘adjacency’ of toilet facilities to ‘nearby’ or ‘convenient’.
• Consider including a regulation around a buzzer or intercom for children if they are left unattended and need attention.
• Designating the restroom as an isolation space if needed.

Q11 - Wellbeing spaces: Do you agree that wellbeing spaces, including nurture spaces, should be included in the regulations? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	70	6	24
All answering	201	92	8	-
Individuals	137	91	9	-
Organisations:	64	94	6	-
- Local Authority	24	88	13	-
- Equalities	3	67	33	-
- Disability	5	100	0	-
- Design/Engineering	9	100	0	-
- Schools, parents and carers	8	100	0	-
- Environment/Nature	7	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	3	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	2	100	0	-
- Other	3	100	0	-

There was widespread agreement among those answering Q11 that wellbeing spaces, including nurture spaces, should be included in the regulations. Overall, 92% felt they should, including 91% of individuals and 94% of organisations that answered. The vast majority of most types of organisations also agreed.

Just under half of all respondents left a response at this open question. Some respondents agreed with the proposal, but caveated their support with further considerations. These considerations were often the same reasons that other respondents cited their disagreement. This section presents the range of concerns and considerations raised by this mix of respondents.

Resource requirements

The most prevalent theme, mentioned by many who agreed and a few who disagreed with the proposal, was a concern about the staffing and space resources needed to facilitate wellbeing spaces. Respondents wanted to ensure that there was a distinction between any wellbeing spaces intended for use by all students and staff, and the nurture spaces already in existence for students with additional support needs. Respondents were concerned that, without clarity in the regulations, new spaces would take away from the resources currently allocated to existing nurture spaces.

“It is also important to maintain a distinction between general wellbeing spaces and those specifically designed for pupils with additional support needs, ensuring that all pupils have access to appropriate and tailored provision.” - Hamilton School for the Deaf

In contrast, a few respondents felt it was important that services were integrated to not separate children with additional support needs into separate areas.

Agreement with the proposal

While the question did not ask for further qualification of support, several respondents reiterated their support for the inclusion of wellbeing spaces, as they felt these spaces are beneficial for certain groups of students. Some felt they were essential for supporting mental health and wellbeing, and could help to support positive outcomes for any students who may find aspects of the school day overwhelming.

The specific benefit these spaces could have for students with additional support needs was mentioned by some respondents. They felt that having these spaces would allow respite for students who found aspects of the school day tiring and could allow children to work to their fullest potential.

Some respondents reiterated their support for the proposal with general statements of agreement.

Flexibility

As with other questions, several respondents noted that flexibility for schools to adapt to the requirements of their spaces and students’ needs would be better than prescriptive regulations. This was mentioned by a few respondents in relation to small and rural schools, where the size of the school may mean there are different needs and space demands.

Outdoor spaces

Consideration of the use of outdoor spaces was mentioned by some respondents. These respondents thought that it was important to include calm and quiet outdoor spaces for use as designated nurture spaces. A few respondents specifically mentioned the benefit to some pupils with additional support needs.

“Nature has been shown to be beneficial to health and wellbeing, and enabling time spent outside in nature should be supported by creating safe, calming, nature-rich spaces away from the hustle and bustle of active play and sport, which should be incorporated into the design of school grounds. In addition to a wider incorporation of nature across the site, some outdoor spaces should also be developed as calming and quiet spaces. Remembering that nurture spaces can be outdoors.” – Learning through Landscapes

Design suggestions

Some respondents suggested how the wellbeing spaces could be designed. A few respondents mentioned consideration of acoustics for deaf pupils by including things like soft furnishings, carpets and acoustic wall panels. Other recommendations included a sensory neutral design where visual systems can rest, application of a trauma-informed approach to the design for staff and student survivors of abuse, and consideration of the removal of the viewing window from the regulations, as it may not be appropriate for all users of the space.

“The specified minimum requirements for the withdrawal spaces risk infringing upon rights under the UNCRC without mandatory enhanced technical guidance that considers the additional acoustic, hygiene, privacy and safety needs of pupils likely to require a withdrawal space in mainstream settings. Changing the name doesn't change practice.” – Individual

Disagreement with the proposal

Some respondents disagreed that wellbeing spaces, including nurture spaces, should be included in the regulations. A few felt they were unnecessary generally. One respondent felt these spaces may drive a mental health crisis, and another thought it may reduce confidence through social isolation for some children.

Q12 - Digital infrastructure and connectivity: Do you agree that the updated regulations should include a principle-based requirement for digital infrastructure and connectivity in all schools? If not, why not? Please provide examples of how digital provision supports educational outcomes in your context.

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	65	3	32
All answering	180	96	4	-
Individuals	129	95	5	-
Organisations:	51	98	2	-
- Local Authority	23	100	0	-
- Equalities	3	100	0	-
- Disability	3	100	0	-
- Design/Engineering	6	100	0	-
- Schools, parents and carers	8	88	13	-
- Environment/Nature	3	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	3	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	1	100	0	-
- Other	1	100	0	-

Almost all respondents who answered Q12 agreed that the updated regulations should include a principle-based requirement for digital infrastructure and connectivity in all schools. Overall, 96% agreed this should be the case, including 95% of individuals and 98% of organisations that answered.

Just under a sixth of respondents left an open response to Q12.

Agreement with the proposal

The most prevalent theme at Q12 was agreement with the proposal, as respondents expressed the view that digital infrastructure in classrooms:

• Ensures children develop digital skills needed for future learning and employment.
• Allows children to access educational facilities for distance learning and studying, particularly for children in rural and island communities.
• Provides students with learning pathways that meet their different developmental needs, particularly those with additional support needs.

Disagreement with the proposal

A small number of respondents disagreed with the proposal. Comments included that there should be an additional framework for students with Complex Needs and Sensory Impairments, and a concern about the use of technology in classrooms and the negative impact that it could have on children’s wellbeing. One respondent suggested that this regulation be applied to secondary schools but not primary schools for this reason. Another respondent thought that overdependence on technology in classrooms could reduce the resilience of schools in the case of Wi-Fi outages.

Concerns and suggestions

Several respondents raised concerns or suggestions. As was noted at the start of this chapter, some respondents mentioned cost concerns with rolling out the regulation and asked for greater national and local funding.

The importance of ensuring adequate safeguards are in place was mentioned by some. An individual noted the importance of digital provision being “proportionate, age-appropriate and supportive of education rather than replacing in-person teaching or pastoral interaction”.

A few respondents highlighted concerns about digital exclusion, expressing the view that providing digital infrastructure in schools and even providing hardware to students is only the first step in addressing exclusion. They felt this needs to be supported with learning around software updates, ensuring devices are compatible, and providing pathways to help students with technology failures or malfunctions.

EIS recommended consultation with teachers and professional associations to allow input into the best ways to implement the regulations.

Q13 - Lighting (Regulation 21): Do you agree this covers the requirements for lighting? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	52	12	36
All answering	169	81	19	-
Individuals	120	83	18	-
Organisations:	49	78	22	-
- Local Authority	23	87	13	-
- Equalities	3	100	0	-
- Disability	5	40	60	-
- Design/Engineering	4	75	25	-
- Schools, parents and carers	7	71	29	-
- Environment/Nature	2	50	50	-
- Education union/rep body	2	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	0	-	-	-
- Other	3	67	33	-

Four fifths (81%) of those answering Q13 agreed that the proposed changes to this regulation covers the requirements for lighting, while 19% did not. While similar levels of agreement were recorded among individuals (83%) and organisations (78%), views varied considerably by type of organisation. While 87% of local authorities that answered agreed, disability organisations were more likely to be opposed (60% compared to 40% in favour).

Just under a quarter of respondents left a comment at Q13.

Concerns for students with additional support needs

The most prevalent theme, mentioned by over a third of those who commented, and by a mix of those who disagreed and agreed at the closed question, was concern that the proposed changes to the regulation do not adequately consider the needs of children with additional support needs.

These respondents noted that fluorescent lighting and overly bright lighting can lead to fatigue, distress, headaches and sensory overload. Given this, they called for the inclusion of sensory-appropriate lighting, such as adjustable lighting, or greater dependence on natural lighting in schools. Other respondents suggested including regulations around the control of natural lighting using blinds. One anonymous respondent noted that blinds also help pupils with hearing loss as they act as sound absorbers and minimise glare to allow children to read facial expressions and lipread more accurately.

In contrast, Falkirk Council and one individual felt that flexibility in this regulation was preferable, as it has led to innovation in facilities provision among practitioners and staff to meet individual pupil needs.

Agreement with the proposal

Some respondents reiterated their support for the proposed changes at the open question. Those who expanded upon their response often caveated their agreement with the need to ensure any changes address the concerns noted above.

Other suggestions

Some respondents advocated for using natural light as much as possible for health, wellbeing and sustainability reasons, referencing guides such as the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s Climate-Based Daylight Modelling, CIBSE Guide LG5, BS EN 12464-1 Light and Lighting of the Interior Workplace, and Learning for Sustainability guidelines. Some respondents mentioned the need for adaptable lighting for digital learning and multi-modal teaching spaces, including zoned lighting for different uses in one classroom. A few suggested regulating a maximum lighting value to ensure lights are never too bright.

Other recommendations mentioned by one respondent each included:

• Regulation around the timeframes for replacing spent bulbs.
• Floodlights for after-school sports in the darker months of the year.

“Due to the critical nature of lighting, substantive regulations are required. The proposal to change the Regulation merely to requiring ‘appropriate’ lighting, with further guidance being non-statutory, seriously weakens this Regulation. The NASUWT opposes such changes and urges the retention of specific minimum standards.” - NASUWT

Q14 - Ventilation (Regulation 22): Do you agree that this Regulation should be retained and updated? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	61	4	35
All answering	171	94	6	-
Individuals	124	95	5	-
Organisations:	47	91	9	-
- Local Authority	23	87	13	-
- Equalities	3	100	0	-
- Disability	2	100	0	-
- Design/Engineering	6	100	0	-
- Schools, parents and carers	7	86	14	-
- Environment/Nature	1	100	0	-
- Education union/rep body	3	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	0	-	-	-
- Other	2	100	0	-

Almost all respondents who answered Q14 agreed that Regulation 22 (Ventilation) should be retained and updated. Overall, 94% agreed this should be the case, including 95% of individuals and 91% of organisations that answered.

Just under one fifth of all respondents commented at Q14.

Agreement with the proposal

The most prevalent theme at Q14 was agreement with the proposed update to the ventilation regulations. Respondents highlighted how different schools are today compared to 1967, particularly with higher occupancy densities. Others noted that the learning gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding ventilation and the spread of illness showed the importance of updating ventilation regulations. Some other respondents agreed with the proposal at the closed question but caveated their support with recommendations as detailed below.

Concerns and considerations

Some respondents brought up concerns about working windows. A few of these respondents felt that natural ventilation was better than mechanical ventilation. However, a few also raised concerns about the impact of open windows on room temperatures. The Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland suggested the aim be for well-ventilated rooms at a comfortable temperature.

“As many school buildings are naturally ventilated, with the principal means of ventilation being through openable windows, there is often a direct compromise required between thermal comfort and good levels of ventilation.” – City of Edinburgh Council (Officers)

Two individual respondents raised concern about rooms without windows, which can become overheated.

Other considerations

Some respondents provided other considerations alongside their agreement. This included, from most to least prevalent:

• Concern over the noise impact of ventilation systems.
• Suggestion to continue to monitor carbon dioxide in schools, particularly in poorly ventilated areas.
• Consideration of installing air purification systems in classrooms.
• Regulations should include specific acceptable levels of carbon dioxide inside the school.
• Consideration for the specific needs of different classrooms, such as Design and Technology workshops, which may require more robust dust and fume extraction.
• Reference made to Technical Handbooks Mandatory Standard section 3.14, to CIBSE TM57: 2015 Design for Education, and/or Building Bulletin 101.
• Regular audit of current provision going forward.

Q15 - Heating (Regulation 23): Do you agree this Regulation can be retained and updated? If not, why not?

Respondent type	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% No answer
All respondents	264	56	5	39
All answering	162	92	8	-
Individuals	118	93	7	-
Organisations:	44	89	11	-
- Local Authority	23	83	17	-
- Equalities	3	100	0	-
- Disability	2	100	0	-
- Design/Engineering	3	100	0	-
- Schools, parents and carers	6	100	0	-
- Environment/Nature	2	50	50	-
- Education union/rep body	4	100	0	-
- Children's Rights	0	-	-	-
- Other	1	100	0	-

Among respondents who answered Q15, 92% agreed that Regulation 23 (Heating) should be retained and updated, including 95% of individuals and 89% of organisations.

Just under a sixth of all respondents left an open response to Q15.

Minimum and maximum temperature concerns

The most prevalent theme, raised by a mix of those who agreed and disagreed at the closed question, was a concern that the minimum proposed temperature for school buildings was too low. These respondents felt that 17 degrees would be an uncomfortably cool temperature for students and staff. Some others mentioned that children with additional support needs or children with medical conditions may require warmer temperatures and suggested that schools account for this when setting a minimum temperature.

Some other respondents also felt that setting maximum temperatures for schools, particularly certain warmer rooms like kitchens, should be included in the regulations.

General agreement

While the open question did not ask respondents to provide further details if they agreed, some reiterated their support. Respondents acknowledged the different uses of school buildings and resources since 1967 and supported proposed amendments to account for new styles of learning spaces, new digital equipment, indoor-outdoor transition, energy efficiency, and sustainability.

Climate change

The need to ensure the sustainability of heating systems in light of climate change and net-zero transition targets was mentioned by some respondents. Keep Scotland Beautiful felt that schools needed more independent control over their heating to minimise energy wastage, something reiterated by an individual who felt systems did not allow for enough control on a classroom-by-classroom basis. At Q14, UNISON suggested that increasing extreme weather means that school buildings should be made climate resilient.

Other considerations

Some respondents noted further considerations. These included concerns, made mostly by local authorities, about the impact of adverse events or emergency situations, such as heating failures, and noted that schools should be given flexibility in these situations to avoid school closures.

“It is reasonable to retain and modernise the heating Regulation, but it must be explicit about acceptable temperature ranges and responsibilities for remedial action when conditions are too cold or too hot. School leaders routinely manage the consequences of heating failures but do not control capital decisions. Revised wording should therefore make clear that ensuring compliant systems is an authority duty, supported by sufficient funding.” - AHDS

A few other respondents suggested referring to technical specifications, although they did not specify which ones, and Aberdeenshire Council suggested referencing Building Bulletin 101 and CIBSE TM52.