Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Seven-year-old zero carbon school demolished due to leaks

Dartington primary school
  • 12 Comments

A primary school designed by White Design, lauded for its sustainability credentials, has been demolished just seven years after completion

Work started last week on flattening Dartington Primary School near Totnes in Devon following the failure of a rainwater harvesting system on its roof.

The council settled out of court after issuing proceedings against the school’s architect, White Design, and contractor Interserve, in which it claimed £7 million in damages arising from the problem.

One of the first zero-carbon schools in the UK, Dartington Primary opened in 2009, fitted with a system at roof level to harvest, store and filter water to supply toilet cisterns.

Soon afterwards, however, classrooms were affected by water ingress from the roof, and the council concluded that the buildings were beyond economic repair following a technical report.

The report found that the major cause of the ongoing water ingress was likely to be the result of the scheme’s design. It pointed to complexities within the rainwater harvesting system and concern about the materials specified for it.

According to parents, locally sourced sweet chestnut cladding on the roof buckled and warped, allowing rainwater to seep in. This meant that, instead of flowing into the rainwater harvesting cisterns, the water seeped into the building creating damp and mouldy walls.

Construction of a replacement building, designed by Atkins, is expected to begin in the new year, having gained planning permission in October. It will provide 315 primary places and a 30-place nursery school.

A council report on the replacement school said: ‘The building has a number of sustainable design and energy efficiency elements, meeting building regulations requirements.’ 

These include natural ventilation, natural lighting, lighting control sensors to minimise the use of artificial light and a canopy along the south elevation to reduce solar gain, but no rainwater harvesting system.

Craig White, director at White Design, said: ‘There was a claim that has now been settled. We are all bound by a confidentiality agreement, so that is about as much as I can say.’

  • 12 Comments

Readers' comments (12)

  • .... clients do take risks with experimental designs....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So do Architects....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I hope the demolition allowed for recycling of materials not damaged such as windows, doors, lighting etc. That would slightly offset the environmental damage by this disaster.
    Do clients reall have to take risks with experimental designs. Surely not if the design is sound and the detailing thorough combined with a high quality build the building should not fall apart with rot. It is possible that odd features may not perform as intended but not the whole building fail.
    Buildings like this really set back the promotion "green buildings" at a time when they are needed especially in schools.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ECO with the truth!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having spent most of my working life in the USA may account for my utter disgust with the UK building profession.
    That disciplinary proceedings against the architects have not been initiated by the RIBA can only attest to the complete and utter lack of understanding about timber construction shown by all parties connected with this shameful saga.
    Not just the architects; sure, designing a building with no acceptable primary roof covering is pretty bad, but what on earth were the structural engineers and CLT fabricators thinking? To design a building that in event of water intrusion - whether external or from condensation - requires demolition, demonstrates an almost criminal incompetence. Even more shocking, details of the project were published in most construction periodicals, and no one raised a red flag!!! No AHJ in the US would have spared the plans a second glance and would have rejected them of hand.
    I will state it quite categorically: Architectural education must be reformed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We do not know exactly what the failure mechanism is for this project and even traditionally-designed constructions can leak if incorrectly detailed and built but there is a general point here to be made.

    It is possible to design a building that is a so-called 'Eco ' building and minimise the risk of internal water ingress. What one needs is wide eaves, gutters and external downpipes leading to external tanks.

    Reduce parapet gutters and internal gutters where possible (these may not be able to be designed out easily on some plan forms). But where they are internal, keep them as wide and easily accessible as possible. With climate change in mind, rain storms will be heavier and more intense.
    Our response in this practice is to design where possible wide eaves and gable ladders so if the rainwater disposal system is overwhelmed, the water can cascade off without getting into the head of the walls.

    Our latest completed church has overhangs from 0.5m - 1.8m and overflow spouts to the catch-pit the end of wide zinc-clad sloping box gutters (this is at the 1.8m overhang) .And our two recent private houses (including a hemcrete house) have generous overhangs and gutters .

    But the outlines are less sleek (so less magazine-friendly for publication) and gutters are a lot harder to model in 3D in a hurry!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kieran Gaffney

    Dear AJ

    I think we need a air-accident style investigation on what went wrong here. I understand that White Design may be bound by a CA and won't be keen on this for PR reasons but we need as a profession to learn the lessons from failed projects like this. Can the AJ investigate and report on this and show what details failed? I'd be very surprised if warped timber on the roof was the problem - wasn't that just a rainscreen?

    Desperately sad story.

    The "good hat and boots" response is not good enough there has to be a more beautiful way of building that is leak proof.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • STEPHEN HARGREAVES

    I remember going on an RIBA visitor site visit during construction and as the SIPS panels were being erected. If you were to visualise the rhombus forms of the roof meeting along the hip lines of a thick pair of SIPS panels, I can remember querying at the time how the join was to be sealed as daylight would often be seen through the gap, i.e. they fitted where they touched. We came away unimpressed and fearful for the insurance policy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just because one has a good hat and good boots it does not make an ugly building (this very small practice having designed one RIBA Regional award winner and a Regional Commendation plus a number of branch awards...). And the Japanese have rather lovely wide-eaved traditional buildings..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A very sad story indeed for all and especially for the innovation of architectural enquiry into sustainable designs. One can imagine the concept, the sexy models and visuals of timber cladding all being greeted with enthusiasm and generosity. It seems like a classic case of too much innovation with limited budget and the power of the image seduction in search of architectural 'fame'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.