on the subject of RAAC

[bungeejumper]

The place where they really do throw away houses is Japan, where there are vast numbers of perfectly restorable houses that have just been left to rot because everybody wants new-build. https://www.wionews.com/world/every-sev ... hem-631903

In 2018, Japan had approximately 8.49 million unoccupied houses, a significant increase of 1.5 times from 1998, constituting 13.6 per cent of all residences, as reported by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

According to projections from the Nomura Research Institute, if not addressed through large-scale demolitions, the number of vacant homes is expected to surge to 23.03 million by 2038, representing 31.5 per cent of all houses. This means that nearly one in three houses could potentially remain unoccupied.

I might make a similar comment about Sweden. Decent-quality timber, including softwood, has a longer lifetime than - it seems - most post-1945 construction materials.

Post-1918, actually. It was the heavy timber use of the first world war that encouraged foresters to go for fast-growing trees that just didn't have the quality of the 19th century. Victorian growers had favoured slow-growing trees that weren't ready for felling till they were 50 or 60 years old; these days, 30 years at most is all they get. (And a lot of those are crappy Siberian birch, which is fit only for chipboard imho. )

Our Victorian house was built using pines grown and sawn on the landowner's estate, and the roof trusses are absolutely massive and almost as hard as oak. But then, we do have a stone-tiled roof to support.

BJ

[UncleEbenezer]

I might make a similar comment about Sweden. Decent-quality timber, including softwood, has a longer lifetime than - it seems - most post-1945 construction materials.

Post-1918, actually.

I would've tended to say the same.

Then I lived several years (2013-2019) in a 1930s 3-bed semi. Surprised me pleasantly with its very solid and robust construction. So I revised my ideas. But maybe that wasn't the norm after all?

[mc2fool]

WOW

apologies...it was never my intention to be so misunderstood

I was simply (imo) suggesting that if we believed the BBC then it was entirely the fault of the Tories

and obviously these days almost nobody does believe them...or should I say 'it'

as for there views being neutral...well I havent heard a single suggestion on BBC that this problem is anything but current.

I do fully agree that actions should have been taken FAR EARLIER

Maybe so, but who do you think is responsible for not having taken action in the last 13 years? Or do you think that 'cos (if true) no action was taken previously that somehow exonerates everybody in power from not having done so since? Strange logic there, if so.

Anyway, let's see what the government itself says, which answers at least some of your original questions, "is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with)"

From https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/08/31/new-guidance-on-raac-in-education-settings/

"RAAC was used in schools, colleges and other building construction from the 1950s until the mid-1990s. It may therefore be found in any school and college building (educational and ancillary) that was either built or modified in this time period." [So mostly under Tory govts then: 33 years out of 45. ]

"We have been helping schools and responsible bodies (such as local authorities and multi-academy trusts) to manage the potential risks of RAAC since 2018 by providing guidance and funding.
:
The Government has been aware of public sector buildings that contain RAAC since 1994 and we have been monitoring their condition since 2018. We continually assess new information and research about RAAC to ensure the safety of schools and pupils.

In 2022, the Department for Education sent a questionnaire to all responsible bodies, asking them to provide information to help us understand the use of RAAC across the school estate and make sure the correct support is in place.

Recent cases have now changed our assessment of the risk that RAAC poses to building safety. "

So both colours of governments have known of public sector buildings containing RAAC since 1994 but only started to monitor their condition and manage the potential risks in 2018 -- and it then took them four years to send out a questionnaire about it.

"How many schools are affected by RAAC? Will all of them need to close?

No – not all schools affected by RAAC need to close.

Just over 50 settings have already been supported to put mitigations in place this year, including through additional funding for temporary accommodation, and all children are receiving face to face learning. 

This week, we have contacted all 104 further settings where RAAC is currently confirmed to be present without mitigations in place, to ask them to vacate spaces or buildings that are known to contain RAAC. "

[ursaminortaur]

It seems that remediation of the concrete problem could be slowed because some of the same buildings still have asbestos which could be exposed despite it being banned over two decades ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/03/how-asbestos-could-slow-efforts-fix-crumbling-concrete-english-schools

This means it is possible asbestos will become exposed in buildings affected by crumbling concrete and could slow down remediation works, extending school building closures by months.

Despite asbestos being banned more than two decades ago, the material remains in at least 300,000 non-domestic buildings in the UK. However, sources believe many of the public buildings affected by Raac are asbestos-free.

Campaigners and teaching unions have been ringing alarm bells for years, with the last official figures published by the Department for Education in 2019 showing that asbestos is present in four out of five schools (81%) in England.

In July, the teaching union NASUWT called for the urgent prioritisation of removing asbestos from school buildings, criticising the government’s “lack of urgency” and saying it was “passing on a potentially deadly legacy” to current staff and pupils.

[bungeejumper]

It seems that remediation of the concrete problem could be slowed because some of the same buildings still have asbestos which could be exposed despite it being banned over two decades ago.

Substantially correct, but a small point of order. Asbestos is not banned if it's held in fully enclosed spaces where the dust can't reach people. What was banned 20/40 years ago was the installation of new asbestos. And, although there's certainly a policy of removing it from public buildings, and although you're definitely required to remove it if it's been disturbed during building work, there's nothing actually illegal about it being there.

One could argue that it ought to be! But that would mean stripping and dismantling nearly every office or public building that was constructed between 1880 and 1980, and realistically, that ain't gonna happen because the costs would be beyond astronomical and a hundred thousand factories would have to close.

Not a lot of people know this, but every Marley tiled floor in the country contains asbestos; the health and safety guidance is that you can remove it (or rather, get it professionally removed) or seal it in with a layer of vinyl (for example). And the corrugated cement shed roofs of half the country are okay unless they're broken, in which event they become instantly toxic and have to be disposed at specialist hazard sites. No, I don't make the rules.

BJ

[Mike4]

It seems that remediation of the concrete problem could be slowed because some of the same buildings still have asbestos which could be exposed despite it being banned over two decades ago.

Substantially correct, but a small point of order. Asbestos is not banned if it's held in fully enclosed spaces where the dust can't reach people. What was banned 20/40 years ago was the installation of new asbestos. And, although there's certainly a policy of removing it from public buildings, and although you're definitely required to remove it if it's been disturbed during building work, there's nothing actually illegal about it being there.

One could argue that it ought to be! But that would mean stripping and dismantling nearly every office or public building that was constructed between 1880 and 1980, and realistically, that ain't gonna happen because the costs would be beyond astronomical and a hundred thousand factories would have to close.

Not a lot of people know this, but every Marley tiled floor in the country contains asbestos; the health and safety guidance is that you can remove it (or rather, get it professionally removed) or seal it in with a layer of vinyl (for example). And the corrugated cement shed roofs of half the country are okay unless they're broken, in which event they become instantly toxic and have to be disposed at specialist hazard sites. No, I don't make the rules.

BJ

Having read the regs long ago about how to treat asbestos if encountered in a building, ISTR "encapsulation" is considered a valid way of dealing with the problem. I think encapsulation is WAY cheaper than removing it and I suspect happens in the vast majority of cases. So when a RAAC beam collapses and brings down a load of previously encapulated asbestos with it, its a doubly difficult thing to deal with.





"RAAC plank failure"


Source: https://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips- ... ay&id=1068


In addition to Marley tiles, Artex was made from asbestos until the early 70s IIRC, and removing it now is regarded as hazardous.

[Lanark]

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?

NHBC warranty is 2 years, after that it's the buyers problem.

[ursaminortaur]

The Treasury have undermined Jeremy Hunt's promise to spend what it takes to fix the RAAC problems of schools by insisting that there will be no extra cash and that instead schools will have to cover the costs of repairs and closures from the existing education budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/03/jeremy-hunt-under-fire-after-treasury-says-no-new-cash-to-fix-raac-in-schools

Jeremy Hunt has been accused of abandoning children disrupted by the concrete crisis in schools after the government admitted there will be no extra cash for the education budget to cover repair costs and closures.

As dozens of schools shut buildings for weeks and prepare to evacuate children to other sites as the new term begins, Whitehall sources said additional costs for headteachers – such as transport to alternative schools and catering – will not be covered by central government.

The deepening row over the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac) in schools, which is threatening to dominate parliament this week, comes after the chancellor said the government would “spend what it takes” to deal with the crisis.


Hunt told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that he would not speculate on the potential cost of fixing the problem, but said: “We will spend what it takes to make sure children can go to school safely, yes.”

But hours later, Treasury sources briefed that any such funding will come from the Department for Education’s existing budget for buildings – and not from additional funds.

Whitehall sources said schools, academies and local authorities forced to bus their pupils to alternative sites will not be given extra cash either.
.
.
.
Mike Short, head of education for Unison, said: “When the chancellor promises he’ll do ‘whatever it takes’, he must do just that. Offering nothing extra is totally at odds with his own pledge.”

Research published by the House of Commons library found that between 2009-10 and 2021-22, the DfE’s capital spending budget fell by about 50% in real terms.

Furthermore, the Raac crisis has been compounded by the longstanding problem of asbestos in school buildings.

Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, said the crisis stemmed from the Conservatives’ decision in 2010 to axe the Building Schools for the Future programme – the investment strategy introduced under Tony Blair – and what she described as repeated raids on education capital budgets.

[JohnB]

The Treasury rejected pleas from the Department of Education to fix schools while Rishi was in charge in 2021.

After the department told Sunak’s Treasury that there was a need to rebuild 300 to 400 schools a year in England, he gave funding for only 100, which was then halved to 50, said Jonathan Slater, the permanent secretary of the department from 2016 to 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... il-servant

[Arborbridge]

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?

NHBC warranty is 2 years, after that it's the buyers problem.

Really? It used to be 10 years.

[monabri]

NHBC warranty is 2 years, after that it's the buyers problem.

Really? It used to be 10 years.

https://www.nhbc.co.uk/builders/warranties-and-cover

"We first introduced a two-year building warranty in the 1940s, followed by the first 10-year warranty in 1965. This was the foundation for our current Buildmark policy which comprises deposit protection; a two-year builder warranty period backed by the NHBC resolution service; and a further eight years’ insurance cover against damage caused by defects in the structure of the property.

Buildmark is designed to give homeowners peace of mind over the largest purchase they will ever make. It currently protects around 1.4 million homes in the UK."

[Arborbridge]

Really? It used to be 10 years.

https://www.nhbc.co.uk/builders/warranties-and-cover

"We first introduced a two-year building warranty in the 1940s, followed by the first 10-year warranty in 1965. This was the foundation for our current Buildmark policy which comprises deposit protection; a two-year builder warranty period backed by the NHBC resolution service; and a further eight years’ insurance cover against damage caused by defects in the structure of the property.

Buildmark is designed to give homeowners peace of mind over the largest purchase they will ever make. It currently protects around 1.4 million homes in the UK."

Thanks for bringing me up to date - the last house I bought with an NHBC certificate was under the old system.

In effect the builders have now washed their hands of it and laid off the risk to a insurance scheme. So much for their confidence in building standards!

[Adamski]

NHBC warranty is 2 years, after that it's the buyers problem.

Actually it's 10 years. 2 years is minor snags, 10 years for major structural stuff.

[Adamski]

I think root cause is underspending on infrastructure. Problem in the uk relative to our counterparts is we spend big (relative to gdp) on benefits, foreign aid, defence, Ukraine, nuclear deterrent. As we still see ourselves as a world power. And we've got too many ppl dependent on state benefits.

Really need to reset our spending priorities, and reevaluate our standing in the world. However can't see that happening with either party. Labour would you'd expect spend more on public sector infrastructure but probably put extra taxes on the squeezed middle classes.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

BBC Today

A three-minute video discusses the number of schools needed to be replaced per year.

Not one for Conservative voters to listen to though

AiY(D)

[servodude]

WOW

apologies...it was never my intention to be so misunderstood

I was simply (imo) suggesting that if we believed the BBC then it was entirely the fault of the Tories

and obviously these days almost nobody does believe them...or should I say 'it'


as for there views being neutral...well I havent heard a single suggestion on BBC that this problem is anything but current.

I do fully agree that actions should have been taken FAR EARLIER

...and for not acting earlier, then we should blame the Tories, according to a civil servant who worked in the Education Department:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... er-reveals

A senior civil service whistleblower has told the Observer that Tory ministers and their political advisers were “dangerously complacent” about crumbling school buildings constructed with aerated concrete, and that they were more concerned with saving money than improving safety.

FD

But does a government really have a duty that for the safety of kids being educated in their schools?
What if they ideologically believe it is up to the parents to send the kids to a better school?

Is it really right to blame the likes of Michael Gove for abandoning the school building projects put in place by the previous govt as Michael Gove did in 2016?

Former education secretary Michael Gove has admitted his 2010 ditching of Building Schools for the Future was one of his worst mistakes

Gove, now a backbench MP, abolished the £55 billion school-building programme, introduced by the previous Labour administration, shortly after the coalition government was formed in 2010.

Speaking on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show yesterday (27 November), he said that his handling of the issue had been one of his worst mistakes in politics.

or is Michael Gove being hard on Michael Gove?

Can't everyone just let them sit out the next 18mths in peace?

[Dod101]

Whatever the faults or otherwise and whoever is to blame, Mark Easton is having a lovely time reporting on this. He and Michael Buchanan ought to get together and do a double act.

Dod

[ursaminortaur]

It appears that the DfE can't even correctly identify schools which need to be closed because of this issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/06/leicester-school-told-by-dfe-to-close-building-finds-it-has-no-raac

A school that scrambled to set up temporary classrooms after the Department for Education (DfE) ordered closures because of Raac has received a government apology after it turned out it did not have the crumbly concrete after all.

The government has published a list of 147 schools with Raac, suggesting that last week’s order to close buildings was overcautious in several cases.

Willowbrook Mead primary school in Leicester will now fully reopen, days after being instructed to immediately close its key stage 2 block. It was among 104 schools in England told to close at least some spaces because of the presence of the out-of-date material.

The decision at Willowbrook was based on a DfE-commissioned survey, according to the school, but its own survey in June showed it had no Raac, and another survey this week confirmed that.
.
.
.
The U-turn in Leicester comes after similar confusion in Kent, where the DfE ordered the total or partial closure of two primary schools on Monday only to admit on Tuesday that they were safe because the schools – St James in Tunbridge Wells and Palmarsh in Hythe – had already put mitigation measures in place.

At Willowbrook, the problem was solved when the school’s governing body commissioned a second survey and established there was no Raac there, it told parents on Wednesday. The school will now be shut to all children on Friday to allow staff to move the furniture and equipment back.

[Redmires]

I've just read an article in 'Private Eye' regarding the problems with RAAC. It's followed by a column on three 'Caledonian Modular' schools that have been closed due to safety concerns. To be fair though, they are over 2 years old so perhaps reached the end of their working life. Two other schools were demolished before they had been finished. I thought I was reading from the comedy pages rather than the serious 'in the back' pages. Apparently not.

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/heal ... 4-08-2023/

[Dod101]

A structural engineer I know and have just been speaking to tells me that just because some buildings use RAAC does not automatically mean that they’re about to fall down or are even potentially dangerous. It seems that if they have been properly maintained they will be fine and it is no sort of scandal. Sadly, the authorities are running scared these days and so any whiff of a problem and they close down whole buildings.

Dod