10.8.1 In relation to the four Phase 2 schools, the records provided to the Inquiry indicate that both Oxgangs and Braidburn Schools were occupied in the first half of 2005. Temporary Occupation certificates were issued for both prior to opening, however, the Completion Certificates for both these schools were not issued by Building Standards until July of 2006, a full year later.
10.8.2 In the case of Firrhill School the Completion Certificate was issued in June 2005 whereas the Availability Certificate was issued three months earlier in March 2005. The Council have confirmed to the Inquiry that a Temporary Occupancy Certificate was also issued in March 2005.
10.8.3 The Certificate of Completion for the fourth Phase 2 project, St. Peter's Primary School, was issued in November 2005, very shortly after the date the school was occupied.
10.8.4 The Inquiry asked why Edinburgh Buildings Standards had not pursued the failure by ESP, AMJV or their agents to apply for the legally required completion certificates, prior to the occupation of the schools or at all in two of the above examples.
10.8.5 In response, the Inquiry was advised that it was the legal responsibility of the building owner/developer, in these cases ESP, to ensure applications were made at the commencement of and on the completion of the construction of buildings and that it was not a responsibility, requirement or practice of the Building Standards Department to take the initiative in actively seeking such applications, including those for Completion Certificates.
10.8.6 The Inquiry was advised that unfortunately failures of building owners under the old system to apply for a Completion Certificate or now, under the new system, to submit an acceptable Completion Certificate to Building Standards for verification by them, are not unusual occurrences. Rarely, if ever, have proceedings been taken or sanctions applied to those who fail to do so.
10.8.7 The Inquiry then sought the views of the senior representative of Edinburgh Building Standards Department as to the effectiveness of these arrangements for ensuring the safety of buildings and their compliance with regulations in light of the described position.
10.8.8 The Inquiry was advised that there is no internal structured system to contact those contravening the law in this regard in circumstances where, after an approved warrant has been issued, either the applicant does not advise Building Standards of a date of commencement of work or, if Building Standards had been notified that work had started, the applicant does not apply for a Completion Certificate when the work is actually complete.
10.8.9 It would appear to the Inquiry that, in such circumstances, the safety of buildings, and the compliance of buildings with the regulations designed to protect users, cannot be assured to the degree intended by the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, unless a more systematic approach is adopted in the administration of the processes.
10.8.10 It is the view of the Inquiry that there were significant failures on the part of those responsible for managing the process of ensuring compliance with the statutory Building Standards requirements for the PPP1 schools. The ultimate responsibility to make the necessary applications lay with the developer ESP.
10.8.11 It is also the view of the Inquiry that the effectiveness of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and its 1959 predecessor, in delivering the key stated policy objective of,
"securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings"
could be severely compromised if the processes used to implement it do not include systematic administrative arrangements to identify, pursue and sanction those who fail to comply with its statutory requirements.
10.8.12 Under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, both the failure to have an approved warrant prior to the commencement of construction and, possibly more seriously, the failure to have an approved Completion Certificate prior to the occupation of a building constitute offences against the Act.
10.8.13 There is no evidence to suggest that the failure to comply with these mandatory legal requirements had any direct impact on the quality of the PPP1 buildings and the occurrences of defective construction subsequently identified.
10.8.14 However, the failure to do so does suggest a less than fully professional approach on the part of those involved in managing the delivery of the projects to fully comply with or observe standard procedural requirements.