Every local authority faces the challenge of balancing tight public budgets with the growing demand for high-quality, modern, and compliant school facilities. Commissioning architecture projects for schools is rarely straightforward. From funding applications and procurement frameworks to stakeholder consultation, planning, and Ofsted/DfE compliance, the process is full of moving parts.

Yet, again and again, councils fall into predictable traps. These mistakes don’t just waste money, they risk Ofsted criticism, community backlash, and facilities that underperform for decades.

In this guide, we explore the 10 most common mistakes councils make when commissioning school architecture projects, why they happen, and most importantly, how to avoid them.

Mistake 1: Not Engaging Stakeholders Early Enough

Too often, councils draft design briefs in isolation and only bring in headteachers, governors, Multi-Academy Trust leaders, or SEND coordinators at a late stage.

Why this is a problem:

• Late feedback forces expensive redesigns.

• Staff and pupils end up with facilities that don’t reflect daily realities (e.g. inadequate storage, circulation bottlenecks, or missed SEND requirements).

• Ofsted increasingly values how buildings support teaching and wellbeing.

  
  

Solution:

• Run structured stakeholder workshops before finalising the brief.

• Use surveys, focus groups, and consultation tools to capture needs.

• Prioritise early engagement with MATs (especially if they operate across multiple schools) to future-proof requirements.

  
  

Mistake 2: Treating Cost as the Only Deciding Factor

Lowest-cost procurement may look politically attractive, but cheapest rarely means best value.

Risks councils face:

• “Value engineering” leads to cut corners.

• Rising maintenance costs far outweigh initial savings.

• DfE and Ofsted may flag non-compliance with minimum space or safety standards.

  
  

Solution:

• Adopt a whole-life costing approach that includes energy, maintenance, and adaptability.

• Use DfE Output Specification benchmarks when evaluating bids.

• Factor in potential funding penalties for failing to meet sustainability or SEND requirements.

  
  

Mistake 3: Overlooking SEND and Accessibility Needs

Accessibility is still too often bolted on after planning approval.

Consequences:

• Retrofitting lifts, ramps, or sensory rooms later is 3–5x more expensive.

• Schools risk breaching Equality Act 2010 duties.

• SEND provision failures create reputational and legal risks.

  
  

Solution:

• Embed BB104 SEND guidance in the design brief.

• Audit existing facilities for gaps and set inclusion targets.

• Consider neurodiverse learning environments (e.g. quiet rooms, adaptable lighting).

  
  

Mistake 4: Ignoring Sustainability and Net Zero Targets

Councils have statutory commitments to achieve net zero by 2030–2050, but many projects still overlook sustainability.

Problems:

• Funding bodies like CIF and PSDS may reject bids without sustainability strategies.

• Poor energy design inflates operating budgets for decades.

• Community pushback grows when councils are seen to ignore climate goals.

  
  

Solution:

• Require architects to run energy modelling (SBEM, Passivhaus PHPP).

• Specify low-carbon materials, heat pumps, solar PV, and natural ventilation.

• Build in post-occupancy evaluation to monitor actual energy use.

  
  

Mistake 5: Poor Tender Documentation

Ambiguous briefs lead to incompatible bids and wasted procurement cycles.

Examples of vague briefing errors:

• “Provide flexible teaching spaces” (unclear without m² or adaptability criteria).

• “Meet sustainability goals” (without reference to DfE standards or local climate strategy).

  
  

Solution:

• Draft tenders aligned to DfE Output Specification, BB103 (Secondary) and BB104 (SEND).

• Include site-specific constraints (heritage, flooding, traffic).

• Provide evaluation criteria weighting upfront to attract serious bidders.

  
  

Mistake 6: Inadequate Risk Management

Planning risk is routinely underestimated.

Risks include:

• Refusals due to heritage designations, conservation areas, or flood zones.

• Delays from traffic impact assessments or community objections.

• Escalating costs from unplanned archaeological surveys.

  
  

Solution:

• Work with architects who have planning success in sensitive contexts.

• Build in risk registers and early feasibility studies.

• Engage planning officers and statutory consultees early.

  
  

Mistake 7: Forgetting Future Flexibility

Schools are dynamic- population growth, new teaching models, and curriculum reforms all change spatial needs.

Mistakes councils make:

• Overly rigid designs that lock schools into layouts.

• Failing to plan for demographic changes or MAT growth.

  
  

Solution:

• Commission modular or reconfigurable spaces.

• Design with demographic projections in mind.

• Incorporate multi-use halls, ICT-rich learning spaces, and adaptable furniture.

  
  

Mistake 8: Weak Contractor Oversight

Councils often delegate project oversight to contractors or external PMs without rigorous monitoring.

Consequences:

• Quality issues go unnoticed until too late.

• Delays compound when snagging and rework pile up.

• Councils face reputational damage for overruns.

  
  

Solution:

• Implement structured project management frameworks (RIBA Plan of Work, NEC contracts).

• Conduct regular compliance checks against tender specifications.

• Require transparent reporting dashboards for councillors and MATs.

  
  

Mistake 9: Failing to Document Compliance

Councils sometimes meet standards but fail to evidence compliance for audits.

Consequences:

• Risk of DfE funding clawback.

• Negative Ofsted feedback on safeguarding, hygiene, or SEND provision.

  
  

Solution:

• Keep a compliance tracker tied to DfE/Ofsted standards.

• Document all design decisions, inspections, and certifications.

• Store records in a central project database.

  
  

Mistake 10: Underestimating Community Impact

Ignoring parents, residents, and local businesses creates opposition that slows or derails projects.

Examples:

• Traffic congestion concerns.

• Loss of green space or sports pitches.

• “Closed door” consultation leading to mistrust.

  
  

Solution:

• Run transparent community engagement sessions early.

• Use visualisations and VR models to communicate designs.

• Offer co-benefits: community use of facilities, shared sports halls, or landscaping improvements.

  
  

How Councils Can Avoid These Pitfalls

By choosing an architecture partner experienced in education estates and council procurement, authorities can:

• Navigate DfE and Ofsted standards with confidence.

• Implement sustainability-first strategies to secure funding.

• Build in stakeholder engagement frameworks.

• Deliver long-term value, not just upfront savings.

  
  

At Grayling Thomas Architects, we help councils:

• Prepare CIF and PSDS funding bids.

• Draft clear tender documentation.

• Design schools that are flexible, inclusive, and sustainable.

• Manage planning and compliance risk end-to-end.

  
  

Conclusion

Commissioning school architecture projects doesn’t have to be a minefield. By recognising these 10 common pitfalls and addressing them proactively, councils can deliver compliant, sustainable, and future-ready schools that truly serve their communities.

The choice councils make today in procurement, design, and engagement will shape education provision for decades. Avoiding these mistakes is not just good project management, it’s an investment in the future of learning.

👉 Next Step: If your authority is planning a school project and wants to avoid these pitfalls, contact Grayling Thomas Architects. We’ll guide you from funding bid to final handover with an approach built around compliance, value, and community trust.