Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 May 1985

Vol. 108 No. 7

Adjournment Matter. - Oldcastle (Meath) School.

Mr. Lynch

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion, and I also thank the the Minister for his presence here to listen to my complaint.

The reason that I have raised this question is because a new national school to replace the old Gilson national school was opened in Oldcastle in July 1977. The school manager at that time complied with all Departmental regulations and specifications as required to standard by the Department and by the Office of Public Works. The cost of the school was approximately £200,000; the local contribution was approximately £25,000. To all intents and purposes, the school seemed to be a sound and well-constructed structure. However, in the autumn of 1981 a leak appeared in the roof. From that time onwards further leaking became apparent in other parts of the roof, and the position at the present time is that there is accumulative leaking in all the rooms in the school: in fact the roof is crumbling and blistering and needs to be replaced urgently. It is almost impossible for the staff to conduct their classes during wet and damp weather. Not alone is it inconvenient but it is also a major distraction for the pupils in the school.

The Department of Education are fully aware of this problem, as indeed are the Office of Public Works. The Department agree that a new roof must be provided as expeditiously as possible and I understand that tender stage has been reached, the lowest tender being approximately £98,000. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards were asked to carry out an inspection of the school roof in Oldcastle. This inspection was carried out in August 1982. According to its report the roof finishes were considered to be unsatisfactory in a number of different features. I should like to quote from the IIRS report:

Widespread rising and creasing of the felt was observed. Blistering of the felt was observed and a number of the blisters were broken and holding moisture. There were gaps between the perimeter paptrim and felt edge; ponding of rain water was also observed. The felt samples removed from the roof were analysed as follows: Both samples were composed of asbestosbased and glass-based bitumen felt combined in three layers.

The conclusion of the report was that moisture penetration is likely to have occurred through the roof in a number of areas; broken blisters in the roof felt; cracked ridges in the felt and gaps between the felt and aluminium paptrim around the perimeter. The ridges in the felt correspond to the pattern of the underlying roof decking joints and as a result of movement in the decking which is concentrated at the joints. This type of roof deck is susceptible to movement as a result of seasonal changes in moisture content and temperature. It is good roofing practice to tape the joints before laying the subsequent layers of the builtup felt system but even this may be insufficient to prevent the occurrence of redding in the felt. Because this movement is cyclic cracks eventually form along the ridge. Blisters of this type are likely to have resulted from moisture entrapment during the laying of the felt or failure to achieve a continuous bond with the bitumen resulting in airpockets. Intersticial condensation is unlikely to have contributed significantly. Condensation of this type, if it had occurred, would have most likely concentrated at roof deck joints whereas the blisters in evidence are scattered at random. Where ponding occurs it is likely to create stresses in the felt at the edge of the water due to the thermal gradient at this point.

The remedial suggestions in the report are that it is considered necessary to replace the existing roof membrane with a polymer membrane embodying a solar reflective coating. Repairing existing breaks in the membrance is not considered practical due to the tendency to create other leaks from roof traffic. It is necessary to remove the existing mineral-chipping surface to provide a sound base for adequate bonding of the remedial membrane.

There are a number of polymer membranes available each of which displays the characteristic of flexibility and elastic strength which enables it to accommodate minor relative movements such as may occur over deck joints. It may also be advisable to carry the membrane over the roof edge to form a drip on the eaves, thereby avoiding the risk of leaving gaps between the paptrim and membrane edge.

I am concerned as to the responsibility for the condition of this roof. The people of the parish have already paid their contributions towards the erection of this school in 1977. Surely, neither the Department of Education nor the Office of Public Works could justifiably ask that the people make a further contribution which would be approximately 25 per cent of £98,000 towards the replacement of the roof. This roof has proved to be defective but was approved by the OPW and the Department of Education at the time it was built in 1976-77.

I am led to beleive that the OPW will approve the tender if the school manager agrees to pay 25 per cent towards the cost of the provision of the replacement roof. It is my understanding that the Department of Education fix the amount of the local contribution in all cases. Also, I understand that the Department of Education are getting no satisfaction whatsoever from the Office of Public Works regarding this matter. It is apparent at this stage that neither the OPW nor the Department of Education will accept responsibility for what has happened in Oldcastle.

I would appreciate it if the Minister would pursue this matter and let me know as soon as possible who is ultimately responsible for what has happened to the school in Oldcastle. I should like to know if the Office of Public Works approved the changing of the specification for this type of span-deck roof in order to reduce the cost of the provision of it. I have some information leading me to believe that this is the case. I should also like to know if the IIRS approved this change in the specification, if such a change did take place. I want to know why the Office of Public Works are apparently reluctant to communicate with the Minister's Department on the matter. I should like an assurance as soon as possible that the Department will pursue this matter both in the interests of education and of the pupils and teaching staff of the school in Oldcastle and ensure that the local people are not financially penalised in any way for the mistakes made by people in the public service and others.

In simple terms, I earnestly ask the Minister to ask his Department to sanction the provision of a new roof for the Gilson school in Oldcastle and confirm that no contribution will be necessary from the school manager there.

This is an unusual case: somebody should be held responsible for it. The school manager complied with all the Department's regulations and specification and in a short space of less than four years this leaking is taking place. The roof is crumbling and the staff will have to evacuate the school. Otherwise the school is structurally sound and well built. Something went wrong with the roof and somebody is responsible. The people should not be penalised for this, especially the school manager, who is the local parish priest, and they should not be asked for another £25,000 to replace the roof.

I should like to thank the Minister for his attention and I look forward to his reply; if he is not aware of all the facts of the case I would appreciate it if he would follow up the matter and communicate with me directly on it.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Creed)

There is no reluctance on the part of my Department to consider the question of a grant to make good the defects in the roof at Oldcastle national school and to do this as urgently as all the circumstances of the case will allow. The case, however, is not a very simple one. The school in question is one of ten classrooms and ancillary accommodation and was designed by an architect in private practice who had been engaged for this purpose by the manager of the school. As is normal in these cases the architect was required to consult with the Office of Public Works which acts as technical adviser to my Department in the matter of the building of primary schools, but the responsibility for the design of the school and for the supervision of the work during its construction rested solely with the architect in question.

The contract for the building was between the manager of the school and the builder. The contract was completed for all practical purposes in March-April 1977 and the appropriate grant payments were made to the manager on foot of certificates supplied by his architect in the normal way.

On 8 March 1982 the chairman of the board of management wrote to my Department and reported a great deal of trouble being caused by leaks in the part of the roof over the assembly hall of the school. My Department immediately advised the Commissioners of Public Works of this matter and requested a report and a recommendation. A further letter was received from the chairman in May 1982, a copy of which was furnished to the Commissioners. This letter referred, inter alia, to advice the chairman had received from his architect that the leaks were a question of maintenance for which, of course, under the rules governing grants for national schools the management would normally be responsible. The chairman also indicated his difficulty of accepting this diagnosis of the problem.

The chairman's original letter of 8 March 1982 had referred to an inspection carried out by an officer of the Office of Public Works who had given as his opinion that major work would be involved in the repair of the roof. The chairman had a further inspection of the problem carried out by a firm of architects he engaged particularly for this purpose and who in turn had consulted a specialist roofing contractor. A report deriving from this consultation was sent by the chairman to the Office of Public Works in September 1982.

In November of that year the Office of Public Works were informed by the architect who had originally designed the school that he had been instructed by the chairman to forward a report on the roof. The architect enclosed the report prepared by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in August 1982 and three tenders were received for a set of proposals to implement the recommendation made by the IIRS in its report. There was no recommendation from the architect as to which quotation should be accepted.

The chairman, writing separately, raised the question of the adequacy of the proposals, and he made special reference to the report he had received from the firm of architects which he had engaged especially to examine the problems of the roof. My Department in correspondence with the Office of Public Works in connection with these reports had also asked them to investigate the possibility of carrying out immediate temporary repairs to the roof as an interim measure. On two occasions during 1983 my Department again requested the Office of Public Works to furnish a report, but in the event full inspection of the roof by the OPW did not take place until August 1983. As a result of this inspection the Office of Public Works wrote to the chairman in April 1984 stating that the works recommended by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards seemed adequate and put forward further suggestions for consideration, including roof insulation. The chairman was asked to arrange for submissions by his architects of fully-documented and comparable tenders on this basis. The Office of Public Works also indicated to the chairman that they would have expected a roof of the type in question to last for about ten years without need for remediation, and since it had lasted only seven they would only be prepared to recommend to my Department to grant-aid the remedial works at an appropriate proportion of the cost. It was also indicated to the chairman that the insulation would rank for grant in the normal way.

I am very conscious of the delay which occurred in the consideration of this case during the period in question — a delay which I am informed was occasioned by pressure of work generally in the schools division of the OPW and by staff shortages.

In February 1985 the chairman's original architect sent three quotations to him for reroofing of the school and recommended acceptance of the lowest quotation. I do not wish to go into extensive technical detail about this matter. Suffice it to say that the roof was a felt-covered flat roof which in a relatively short period developed defects. These defects were reported as rising, creasing and blistering of the felt, the existence of gaps at the feet edge, the ponding of rainwater on the roof and various other matters all of which led to water penetration. The reverend chairman has, I believe, done all that he could to get the best possible advice on the causes of these defects and on the various possibilities of remediation.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that problems of such a nature can develop in a relatively new school building, and it is important that the causes of these problems be fully disgnosed with a view to determining what remedial action is best taken. We must also establish as far as possible how such problems arose in the first instance, who and what factors were responsible for them, so as to ensure that they cannot be repeated in any future design or construction. The Office of Public Works is now dealing with this problem as a matter of urgent priority, and I would hope to have a recommendation from it on the basis of which I can make a decision at a very early stage. I have impressed on the officials concerned that what I am seeking is a permanent solution for this problem for the life of the school which can be put into effect without delay and if any other matters fall to be determined that these should not, if at all possible, delay the carrying out of the necessary remediation works.

This is a unique case in as far as the school was built at an enormous cost and that the roof, in a short time, gave trouble. There are also the cost of investigating the causes and the difficulties involved in getting a report. I am very concerned to have a full report at my disposal as to what caused, in such a relatively short time, these defects.

I assure Senator Lynch in relation to the problem which he has raised and to which I cannot give a direct answer, that the Office of Public Works have nothing to do with the local contribution. This is a matter between the reverend manager and the board of management and my Department. I will not give any undertaking here, or any promise to Senator Lynch, in this regard. But if there is a report before me from the board of management indicating the difficulties involved, I will look at it as favourably as I can.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that because of the unfortunate delays and because of the circumstances of this particular case there will not be any further delays. I have asked the Office of Public Works to make sure that their side of it will be completed as quickly as possible so as that we can go ahead to remedy the defects in a permanent way.

The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 May 1985.