More than 100 schools told to close buildings over safety fears

I suggest the money isn't "found" but allocated pronto to those schools in need like my London secondary school. It is my understanding that nominations are put forward by organisations responsible for school estates. My 1960s built comprehensive (as was) obviously qualified as being in dire need of significant refurbishment, so £920k was granted. All the RAAC buildings like this in urgent need of repair should receive high priority.
Not sure what C & C school means?

Joseann

I think I said earlier that my alma mater in London has issues with RAAC. It was a 60s build, so probably in a long queue waiting to be safely reconstructed. It appears it was one of the lucky ones because a few years ago, it had its roof, facias and verge boards removed and replaced, along with gutters, downpipes etc. Moreover, as stated above as part of the job, the heating piping, trunkwork, electrical and lighting all had to be removed and replaced. The cost was £920k.
They have identified a small area of RAAC requiring attention in another part of the school buildings, but the amazing thing is that 1700 pupils, (we were an 8 form entry), are still going about their daily education undisturbed.
It can be done, and I hope what needs to happen will be done speedily and enduringly.

I wonder if this is C & C School. Yes, it can be done, but where do you suggest schools find £920k?

growstuff I mean people generaally are becoming indifferent to whether people are doing their jobs properly or not and similarly many people seem to think it is unreasonable to be expected to do their job properly if they cannot be bothered

This week I went into our local co-op to buy stamps at the post office counter. It was all lit up and obviously 'open', but there was no-one there. I looked around for the post master( it is a man), hung around and after about 5 minutes remembered that out of hours you could buy stamps at the till so went to the front of the store to see if I could get them and whether the post office was actually open.

When I spoke to the shop assistant, 2 elderly ladies who were chatting heard me and said that he was probably outside having a fag.

They seemed to think this was quite reasonable and said that his counter area was not large and must be confining. Actually it is well ventilated and in a corner of an air-conditioned store. When I said that as he was the post master and paid to be in the post office ready to serve customers during the opening hours and if I came in I expected him to be there, they thought my demands were quite unreasonable.

Once upon a time casual behaviour like this was considered quite unacceptable, sonething we left to other countries. Now however it seems quite acceptable and this kind of attitude pervades manyorganisations like the threads of dry rot.

I’ve just read that RAAC was also used in housing, including in council houses which have subsequently been purchased. That will be a nasty shock for some house owners.

I think I said earlier that my alma mater in London has issues with RAAC. It was a 60s build, so probably in a long queue waiting to be safely reconstructed. It appears it was one of the lucky ones because a few years ago, it had its roof, facias and verge boards removed and replaced, along with gutters, downpipes etc. Moreover, as stated above as part of the job, the heating piping, trunkwork, electrical and lighting all had to be removed and replaced. The cost was £920k.
They have identified a small area of RAAC requiring attention in another part of the school buildings, but the amazing thing is that 1700 pupils, (we were an 8 form entry), are still going about their daily education undisturbed.
It can be done, and I hope what needs to happen will be done speedily and enduringly.

I agree with you mainly MOnica.

I'm beginning to think that there's an organised campaign by the government PR team to "blame" local authorities and schools for lack of maintenance. The more I read about the timeline, the more I think I could be right.

Some of these schools are still standing 20 or 30 years beyond their expected life, which would suggest that a good job has been done on patching up buildings which are no longer fit for purpose.

It has been known since the mid 1990s that the situation with RAAC was more serious than first thought and more recent reports have indicated the increasing urgency. Applications have been made to the government for capital funding, but have been turned down. Funding has been diverted from state schools to setting up "free" schools (the government's ideological flagships).

I've been reading an article by the Institution of Structural Engineers about the difficulties with maintaining RAAC. Constant (and expensive) monitoring is needed. Damage can be caused by running pipework and cabling through the RAAC panels, which can't be repaired easily. Even damp in the atmosphere can cause metal reinforcements to corrode, which leads to buckling and cracking and the panel's slipping off their supports. Even mitigating work can put additional stresses on panels, which then crack and/or crumble. Cover meters and radar can't be relied on to identify the dangers.

I'm not sure who you mean can't be bothered. It seems quite a lot of people have been very bothered about potential collapses over the last few years, but there just hasn't been the funding to do anything about it.

The responsibility first and foremost lies with the government. Schools cannot maintain school buildings if they are not supplied with adequate ring fenced funds.

We keep getting excuses about everything. I think it is time; whether dealing with crime, school maintenance, or the health service, we actually became more demanding, somethings are money but an awful lot these days is just excuses because people can't be bothered.

M0nica

growstuff if children are expected to be in school everyday then it is the rsponsible of the school and local and national government to make sure they are safe and that includes having enough money in their budget to maintain them properly.

There should be clear building plans of the school available to those responsible for building maintenance. It should include wiring, plumbing and heating plans together with schedules of all equipment installed and basic details of construction and materials used. Good and timely maintenance will save money and keep buildings in good order for prolonged trouble free use and ensure that our schools are safe places to entrust our children.

That’s Utopia not reality Monica. Schools could be accurately predicting their requirements, submitting bids via their LAs, which would be prioritised, costed and submitted to the government, but when there’s insufficient allocation the problems continue to grow.
www.ft.com/content/310e21ef-1731-4ef1-8c6c-50b6e4f140a0

growstuff if children are expected to be in school everyday then it is the rsponsible of the school and local and national government to make sure they are safe and that includes having enough money in their budget to maintain them properly.

There should be clear building plans of the school available to those responsible for building maintenance. It should include wiring, plumbing and heating plans together with schedules of all equipment installed and basic details of construction and materials used. Good and timely maintenance will save money and keep buildings in good order for prolonged trouble free use and ensure that our schools are safe places to entrust our children.

I have an idea how much surveys cost
£5k for assessment survey and concrete sampling.

The whole site looks like a mishmash of unco-ordinated and unmatched buildings.

If a private company was applying for planning permission to put up such buildings it would probably be refused.

What a mess, even without the problems with structure.

This is an aerial view of one of the worst affected schools. For a secondary school, it's quite small, but over half the classrooms are affected. I've seen an internal floorplan of the classrooms which can't be used. The two blocks on the right are modern extensions and aren't affected and the building at the front has solar panels and is OK. However, most of the rest is the original 1964 building and has had to be closed.

Casdon

I don’t believe you’re totally right in what you’re saying growstuff, because many affected buildings only have a small proportion of their construction made of this type of concrete, which is replaceable without completely rebuilding the structure. The fault really is in no registers of which buildings, and where in those buildings it was used as that would have helped prevent these issues if there had been a planned replacement programme in place.

I don't think all buildings need total rebuilds and I'm sorry if I've given that impression. However, there are some schools which do need to be replaced in their entirety. It's likely that they will need to be evacuated, while workers are on site, especially if there's asbestos.

PS. Yes, there should have been a planned replacement programme in place. Essex did have one and applied for the funding, which the government refused.

How do you suggest schools should be properly vigilant? Have you seen the size of a secondary school roof? I honestly don't think maintenance staff have the time to spend every day on the roof checking for breaches.

Many people who have flat roofs at home know that water has a sneaky way of getting into even the smallest of gaps in the bitumen coating (or whatever is used). It then finds its level and runs quite a distance before it eventually forms a puddle and comes through the ceiling. It sometimes very difficult to find where the water is coming in. Incidentally, it's not just water which causes the problems. The RAAC tiles have a metal bar running through them, which are supposed to rest on joists. All buildings move slightly over time and the bars can sometimes slip off their supports. If that happens, it can cause the RAAC to crumble and eventually collapse.

When it was used, the country was in desperate need of new schools. As I've mentioned before, Essex had a particular need (mentioned in a Guardian article, so it's not just me imagining things).

I don't know whether it costs more in the long run, if there's a proper replacement programme in place. It's a fact that areas experience demographic change over the decades. New building from the 50s and 60s has an aging population. Young families from the 50s and 60s (baby boom time) are sometimes still in the same houses, but don't have any children. Whereas some areas have a shortage of school places, others are shutting schools because there are too many places. It would make sense to replace schools every decade or so, so that they're situated in the communities where they're needed, rather than using temporary classrooms.

When RAAC was first used, it was known that it wouldn't last for decades, but it wasn't known how long it would last or what the problems would be. It's not just that it's cheaper than concrete, but it's lighter. If you look at schools built in the 60s, many of them are constructed from a metal shell with loads of glass. This was a reaction against gloomy older buildings, but the walls couldn't bear much weight. They were like greenhouses and I don't think anybody would put a concrete roof on a greenhouse.

The fact is the schools (and hospitals) were cheap and cheerful and served a purpose at the time. In any case, I don't suppose many of the councillors or council employees who approved the builds are still in post!

growstuff

This isn't about "maintenance" work. Nobody in his/her right mind would try to "maintain" a sand castle. Maintenance and a planned programme of replacement aren't the same thing, although I agree that financial penny pinching means both are pushed to the back of the queue.

The reason this type of concrete fails is if it gets wet, proper vigilance and maintenance should be able to prevent thst.

I don't think it should ever be used in the first place and believe that building schools etc with cheap materials with a limited lifespan is shortsighted, costs more in the long-term and, well, I'm lost for words!!

Cheapskate Britain?

I don’t believe you’re totally right in what you’re saying growstuff, because many affected buildings only have a small proportion of their construction made of this type of concrete, which is replaceable without completely rebuilding the structure. The fault really is in no registers of which buildings, and where in those buildings it was used as that would have helped prevent these issues if there had been a planned replacement programme in place.

This isn't about "maintenance" work. Nobody in his/her right mind would try to "maintain" a sand castle. Maintenance and a planned programme of replacement aren't the same thing, although I agree that financial penny pinching means both are pushed to the back of the queue.

M0nica

growstuff Not being a building surveyor I have no idea how often such surveys should take place nor their cost, but that doesn't stop me being aware that there are many non-detructive ways of examining buildings these days.

But as the R4 programme made clear, when the financial shoe pinches, the first thing that is delayed or cancelled is maintenance work.

I used to be married to a building surveyor, so I have an idea how much surveys cost, especially when scaffolding and asbestos investigations are needed. It obviously depends on the size and circumstances of the build, but we're talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds and very regular surveys. Schools just do not have that kind of money. It's becoming increasingly evident that local authorities and trusts were, in fact, aware of problems, but couldn't then afford the remedial work anyway.

I am aware that lidar and some other techniques are used in surveying. My partner has been involved in surveying a car park for an ancient artefact and I've seen the kind of results produced. (The area involved is tiny compared with a school flat roof, but it was still expensive.) I'm not a surveyor myself, but I doubt if the results would show when materials are stressed. A building surveyor is still needed and, in any case, if there is some kind of stress or fault, a structural engineer will still be needed to plan mitigating work with minimal disruption.

The point is that these buildings were never intended to last long-term and patched up like a listed building. It was known that they would need to be replaced, but it would appear there was little planning for contingency funding. It's emerging that the current government has diverted money for rebuilding to free school ideological pet projects. There have also been more cases of collapse over the last few years than was made publicly known. There's a lot of passing the buck going on.

growstuff Not being a building surveyor I have no idea how often such surveys should take place nor their cost, but that doesn't stop me being aware that there are many non-detructive ways of examining buildings these days.

But as the R4 programme made clear, when the financial shoe pinches, the first thing that is delayed or cancelled is maintenance work.

Joseann

growstuff

Joseann

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that you have never not had a meticulously adhered to maintenance programme for everything you may own from house to hoover?
That's different Monica.
If it is anything -buildings, swimming pool, or even outside grounds being used by people, especially children, outside my family, then yes hand on heart .ainteannce has always been my priority. If you are responsible for people's safety you have a future to protect them. You check and check again.

How often would you check the entire flat roof of a medium-sized comprehensive school? You would also need to take any internal cladding off and check the internal surfaces.

Never growstuff, I wouldn't know where to start, though I know someone who could speedily facilitate it!!
I was responding to M0nica's saying anything you own from property to hoover.
You're right * M0nica* that if you are charging people to use your property then its your job to be meticulous about maintenance checks, fire regs, insurance, etc. I disapprove of any cutting of corners where safety is concerned, but it happens.

This isn't about regular "maintenance", fire regs or insurance.

M0nica

6How often would you check the entire flat roof of a medium-sized comprehensive school? You would also need to take any internal cladding off and check the internal surfaces.^

Not necessarily, there are many ways of checkingbuildings these days using various forms of electronic and other scanning methods. A bit like all the scans of bodies in hospitals or of whats under the ground in archaeology.

So how much would it cost? And how often would you check?

6How often would you check the entire flat roof of a medium-sized comprehensive school? You would also need to take any internal cladding off and check the internal surfaces.^

Not necessarily, there are many ways of checkingbuildings these days using various forms of electronic and other scanning methods. A bit like all the scans of bodies in hospitals or of whats under the ground in archaeology.

growstuff

Joseann

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that you have never not had a meticulously adhered to maintenance programme for everything you may own from house to hoover?
That's different Monica.
If it is anything -buildings, swimming pool, or even outside grounds being used by people, especially children, outside my family, then yes hand on heart .ainteannce has always been my priority. If you are responsible for people's safety you have a future to protect them. You check and check again.

How often would you check the entire flat roof of a medium-sized comprehensive school? You would also need to take any internal cladding off and check the internal surfaces.

Never growstuff, I wouldn't know where to start, though I know someone who could speedily facilitate it!!
I was responding to M0nica's saying anything you own from property to hoover.
You're right * M0nica* that if you are charging people to use your property then its your job to be meticulous about maintenance checks, fire regs, insurance, etc. I disapprove of any cutting of corners where safety is concerned, but it happens.

These buildings were never intended to last beyond 30 or so years. It's not a problem with maintenance, but capital funding to replace them completely as part of a rolling programme.