5.14.8 At a meeting of the CIMT on the morning of 26th April, the City of Edinburgh Council expressed some concern as to the visibility of ESP, as all dealings on the issues arising from the collapse at Oxgangs had been carried out with representatives from IML, the consultancy acting on ESP's behalf. Questions were raised as to the adequacy of the resources, particularly from a technical perspective, that were being applied by ESP to the resolution of the problems. The meeting notes referred to a sense of frustration on the part of the Council that the pace of action was not adequate, particularly in relation to receiving firm programmes for the remediation works and potential reopening dates of the closed schools.
5.14.9 Amey Communities' expressed position in relation to the Phase 1 schools was that they were awaiting the outcome of the full structural reports and the final designs for the required remedial work before they would be able to produce a programme for this work. These designs were being prepared by WRD for ESP. ESP had accordingly advised representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council that they were not yet in a position to provide a programme for the Phase 1 schools remediation.
5.14.10 In relation to the Phase 2 schools it was reported that Galliford Try had moved construction teams on site and proceeded with a programme of remedial work aimed at addressing the identified absence of head restraints, bed joint reinforcement and secondary steelwork at the Phase 2 schools.
5.14.11 The CPM and Scott Bennett Associates had previously and appropriately advised the CIMT that the wall tie remediation, referred to as Stage 1 work, had required a relatively simple fix, the retrofitting of new remedial wall ties to those walls where the surveys had identified them as necessary. This was a generic solution not requiring structural calculations. The key aspects in carrying out the retrofitting of wall ties was the quality assurance of the installation of the remedial wall ties, including pull-tests, and confirming that this work had been undertaken to all the areas identified as requiring it.
5.14.12 However, the issue in relation to the remedial works required to deal with inadequate provision of wall restraints and bed joint reinforcement, referred to as Stage 2 work, was more complex. There was a continued absence of the original drawings or calculations that had been produced by WSP, the structural engineers who had been responsible for the structural design of the PPP1 projects. This was making it very difficult for WRD and Goodson Associates to understand the original design intent and the reliance of that design solution on the various possible combinations of different brickwork accessories and elements of secondary steelwork in individual cavity wall panels.
5.14.13 Also, whilst the surveys undertaken had been sufficient to identify the extent of the problems, it was practically impossible, without taking down a significant proportion of the external walls of the schools, to be definitive as to what structural components had or had not been built into the walls at each panel location.
5.14.14 In order to provide the necessary reassurance of the structural integrity of the remedial works, the design of the Stage 2 work for the Phase 1 schools, being undertaken by WRD, and the design of the Stage 2 work for the Phase 2 schools, being undertaken by Goodson Associates, would in both cases be required to be based on a combination of calculations from first principles and any available survey information that was definitive.
5.14.15 Scott Bennett Associates, acting in the role of peer reviewer on the part of the City of Edinburgh Council had sought to have sight of this design work so that it could be independently verified by them as presenting satisfactory solutions prior to its implementation on site.
5.14.16 However, the Inquiry were advised by representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council and ESP that, at what was now a relatively advanced stage of the remedial works that were being undertaken to the Phase 2 schools, no information had been provided to either organisation or to Scott Bennett Associates by Galliford Try as to the nature and extent of the remedial work that they had undertaken or intended to undertake on the Phase 2 schools.
5.14.17 Galliford Try, in evidence on this point, stated that they had provided all information that was requested of them by ESP and that they did not have a contractual route to provide this information directly to the City of Edinburgh Council.
5.14.18 Galliford Try would still be required to demonstrate to Scott Bennett that the processes they had implemented and the work they had carried out was to the satisfaction of the Council in terms of both design and implementation. To do so would require the submission of both appropriate documentation by the contractors and their advisers, including structural calculations, and post-completion inspections to be undertaken jointly by Scott Bennett Associates and the Clerk of Works subsequently appointed by the City of Edinburgh Council.
5.14.19 The Scottish Futures Trust ("SFT") had been in contact with the City of Edinburgh Council and advised them that, should the Council require it, they were prepared to provide assistance with any legal issues that may arise relating to these issues.
5.14.20 The City of Edinburgh Council felt that it was important to express their concerns about the construction failures and the remedying of them directly with the Directors of ESP and the large lending organisations that had provided the majority of the funding for the PPP1 projects.
5.14.21 A meeting was held on the afternoon of 26th April 2016 attended by the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and other senior Council officials, the shareholders of ESP and representatives of the banks behind the PPP1 development. The dissatisfaction of the Council with the way in which matters were being handled was expressed at this meeting.
5.14.22 The Chief Executive advised those attending the meeting that the Council's strongly preferred course of action was the 'green' solution, i.e. the completion of all required remedial works prior to reopening of the schools and that they would no longer be content with the 'amber' or two-stage approach.
5.14.23 In the series of meetings with the ESP representative, the Council officers had expressed the requirement that, given the circumstances leading up to the closures, head teachers, members of staff and particularly the parents of pupils would all require an acceptable level of assurance of the safety of each remediated school before that school building was reoccupied. There was considerable debate as to the required final form and content of such assurances and which organisations would be required to provide it.