The Concrete Scandal: A Call for Sustainable Building Practices and Accountability.

Recently, the spotlight has been squarely fixed on the construction industry, accused of being one of the culprits behind the Grenfell tragedy.

However, regarding the current issue with RAAC, it is crucial to set the record straight.

While the construction sector has had issues over the years, the current crisis cannot be attributed to our industry. Instead, we must look deeper and ensure that the true causes of this problem are thoroughly understood.

The buildings constructed using Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) were conceived as a swift and cost-effective solution to address the population boom of their time.

These structures represented innovation, employing modern lightweight materials and construction techniques. Notably, they were designed with a 30-year lifespan, a decision made to keep costs down.

Fast forward to the present, and many of these buildings have not only exceeded their design life but also suffered from a lack of maintenance due to insufficient funding. The consequences are dire, with water ingress compromising the structural integrity of RAAC and causing reinforcement to rust, leading to the risk of collapse.

However, in this case, we must look beyond our industry and acknowledge that successive government policies have played a significant role in the current crisis.

The abrupt cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) program, which aimed to replace all existing secondary schools by 2020, left a void in infrastructure planning.

While the program had its flaws, if seen through, our school estate would be in a far better position than it is today.

The subsequent Priority Schools program, unfortunately, was not funded to the same level as its predecessor.

Nonetheless, it possesses a clear and consistent output specification that provides better value for taxpayers. With additional funding, it could achieve its objectives more efficiently and cost-effectively than earlier programmes.

The concrete scandal is a stark reminder that when procuring buildings, clients must consider their entire lifecycle. Consultants should be more active in advising clients on the delicate balance between capital and lifecycle costs, a facet currently lacking in our industry.

We must shift our focus towards constructing buildings with longer lifespans, not only to mitigate situations like the RAAC crisis but also to reduce the embodied carbon in materials, thereby contributing to sustainability. Undoubtedly, this will come at a cost, both in terms of initial capital and ongoing maintenance.

Shorter-lifespan buildings serve a purpose, particularly when speed and cost are paramount. However, we must acknowledge that at the end of their design life, these structures must either be replaced or significantly updated to extend their longevity.

Our responsibility is clear: we must maximise the use of our planet's finite resources by making informed, long-term decisions. By investing in the maintenance and improvement of our buildings over time, we can extend their lifespan and reduce the burden on the environment. After all, we cannot expect our structures to last indefinitely if we do not invest in their future. It's time to hold policymakers accountable for a more sustainable and resilient built environment.