I read with interest your article "Sexy Education" (20 February, page 24), showcasing "11 ideal designs for secondary and primary schools".
The designs illustrated appear to be extremely innovative and clearly equate to the "no lack of money" ethos. It is, however, highly noticeable that none of the design teams include a facilities management consultant to review the operational requirements of the facilities.

It would be extremely interesting to understand the cost projections made for cleaning, security and maintenance within for example the "boys in the bubble" design.

As an industry, we always seem to find it difficult to reverse the manner in which we undertake procurement, with FM, product suppliers and specialist installers very much removed from the front-end process.

Sexy the designs may be but, but operationally, they could be extremely unattractive.

… and one from the past
I hope that the skills and experience of the staff in local authorities will be used in the design and procurement process for schools. By allowing our input, future maintenance can be minimised. As my colleagues and I know, "maintenance-free" is a myth, especially in schools.

Do you know which buildings stand up best to today's pupils? Victorian. Why? Because they are robust, have large, airy rooms and are built of traditional materials, making them easy to fix. Will anyone take note? I hope so.

Vaughan Castell, senior building surveyor, South Gloucestershire council.

Postscript

Jon Enever, partner, Gleeds, Nottingham.