6.1.1 Following the evidence, provided by the comprehensive surveys of masonry panels in the PPP1 schools, of the widespread presence of non-compliant or defective construction, there was a natural concern on the part of the City of Edinburgh Council that similar defects might be present in other buildings in the ownership or under the management of the Council. The concerns were essentially about seeking to ensure that these buildings provided appropriately safe environments for all occupants, users or members of the public visiting them. There was a clear understanding by the Council of the need to undertake an appropriate course of action to demonstrate due diligence on its part in this regard.
6.1.2 On 28th June 2016, a paper, produced by the CPM, was presented to a meeting of the CIMT proposing a risk-based assessment of the estate to determine the level of requirement for and the prioritisation of an extension of intrusive investigations across the Council's estate.
6.1.3 The paper made the point that there was currently no reason to believe that the City of Edinburgh Council estate was at any greater risk of having similar defects to those found in the PPP1 schools than any other property across the United Kingdom.
6.1.4 The view had been expressed by the CPM and the structural engineers advising the City of Edinburgh Council that the likelihood of the occurrence of similar defects would be greatest in buildings constructed during the last 20 years, as a result of the introduction during that period of the practice of increasing cavity widths to facilitate the incorporation of insulation slabs in cavity wall construction.
6.1.5 Accordingly, it was recommended that the proposed risk-based assessment, if adopted, would prioritise buildings constructed during this period and would start with those of a similar construction to the PPP1 schools. Other risk factors, including the usage category of the buildings, the procurement method used for the building, if design and build had been used and the presence of large masonry panels such as those found in the school buildings, would each be considered in a systematically applied process undertaken by a professional team.
6.1.6 On the 17th August 2016, the Corporate Incident Management Team formally requested that consideration be given to a proportionate and structured approach to investigating the wider estate, specifically regarding the issues identified on the PPP1 Estate (wall tie embedment and head restraint provision). The recorded recommendations of the meeting were that the Council Leadership Team should do as follows:
• Review the full Council's Estate (Operational, Non-Operational, Housing, Edinburgh Leisure) specifically about wall tie embedment and masonry panel restraint in response to the defects addressed on the PPP1 new build estate.
• Approve the proposed methodology to delivering a risk based approach to prioritising, delivering investigations and any associated remedial works.
• Note the PPP1 inspections were limited to the new build PPP1 estate.
• Note that a technical working group had been established consisting of structural engineers with direct experience of the investigations and remedial works delivered on the PPP1 estate.
• Note that it was not possible to estimate the costs of the works as the scope was undefined at this time. An initial working budget had been identified by the Finance Department. As part of the programme reporting there will be monthly cost reporting would be put in place.
6.1.7 It was subsequently agreed, following consultation with elected members, that this approach should be developed and implemented. Approval was also given for the appointment of Scott Bennett Associates and Will Rudd Davidson (WRD) to provide the professional and technical structural engineering support for this work. In relation to this decision, although it was considered that there may be a minor potential conflict of interest with the involvement of WRD (due to their appointment by ESP in relation to the PPP1 schools), the benefit of their hands-on experience in the PPP1 schools was viewed as outweighing any such concern.
6.1.8 In undertaking these inspections, it was appreciated that access for intrusive investigations, particularly in relation to establishing the presence or otherwise of head restraints, could prove logistically difficult to facilitate without disruption and the possibility of raising potentially undue concern on the part of the building users.
6.1.9 The Chair of this Inquiry recommended that other recent schools buildings of broadly similar design and construction should be amongst the first to undergo testing and asked that the Inquiry be provided with early feedback on this exercise.
6.1.10 At the time of writing this Report, the initial risk-assessment process is progressing on those buildings where good quality record information is available. The process of instructing intrusive investigations has also commenced where a desk-top analysis and associated peer review has identified potentially higher risk items.
6.1.11 Until the results of this process are available, it will be impossible to confirm whether other buildings in the estate of the City of Edinburgh Council contain similar defects and for the Council to implement appropriate and proportionate responses to any such findings.
6.1.12 Equally, this information could be highly relevant in helping to establish the extent of the type of defective construction encountered in the PPP1 schools and the likelihood or not of it being more generally present in the work of the construction industry in Scotland.