10.10.1 As previously stated it became apparent from the evidence provided to the Inquiry that there was a general misconception both on the part of some members of the staff of the Council and by others from external bodies, even those associated with the construction industry, as to the extent and purpose of site inspections undertaken as part of the Building Standards system.
10.10.2 The system that was in place in Scotland in 2003 was not dramatically different from the new system introduced in 2005 regarding site visits by building control officers. It required that occasional inspections were undertaken by building control officers to check that buildings as constructed were being built in accordance with approved warrant drawings and were, as far as could be established by their visits, compliant with the regulations.
10.10.3 However, this is in no way meant that Building Control officers were responsible for checking the quality of work done by builders or for supervising them in undertaking their work. Under the 2005 revised Building (Scotland) Act, which did not apply to the PPP1 schools, it is clear that responsibility for compliance with the regulations lies with the relevant person (the developer or owner) and any checks undertaken by Building Standards Departments as verifiers do not remove any responsibility from the relevant person who is required to certify all the completed work as being in accordance with the approved plans.
10.10.4 The Inquiry sought information on the quantum and purpose of site visits undertaken by Building Standards officers to the PPP1 schools during construction.
10.10.5 The table above presents an analysis of the information provided to the Inquiry by Edinburgh Building Standards Department. As one can see from the information extracted from the reports made of the visits to the PPP1 schools undertaken by building officers, a preponderance of the effort of the inspections carried out appears to be related to checking the quality of the drainage installations, with very limited if any references in site visit notes to inspecting the main elements of the structure and external envelope of the buildings. The notes of some visits made reference to checking fire-safety aspects of the works.
10.10.6 The table above shows some variation in the number of visits paid by different building inspectors to the various schools but there is a reasonable consistency in this regard.
10.10.7 From this evidence, it is absolutely clear that the focus of the site inspections was not directed at checking the quality of construction of the external walls nor of the inclusion or otherwise of head restraints or secondary steelwork components. Even if this had been the case, given the limited extent of the detailed construction information that was provided by design teams, or required by Building Standards as part of the application for warrant, the inspectors while on site would have been unaware as to what specific design solutions were being employed to provide the required resistance to wind-loadings in any particular masonry panel.
10.10.8 The following statements were made as part of the evidence to the Inquiry in relation to the inspection role of Edinburgh Building Control officers:
"At the time, as now, we focussed a lot on drainage. We undertook open testing and final testing on every line of drainage because it was a perennial issue."
"We would not necessarily be checking wall ties or the gauge of steel used or bolts used in the framework. It was simply not possible."
"There isn't any way of us ensuring that the structural elements specified are in fact present."
"However, it would be very unlikely for a building inspection to pick upon anything like a lack of wall head restraints or an issue of wall tie embedment. My role is very different to that of a Clerk of Works."
10.10.9 Given the sporadic nature and limited frequency of visits to site, a significant amount of work will normally have been carried out between visits by building control officers and much of that work may no longer be capable of inspection other than through intrusive and disruptive investigations.
10.10.10 The wall ties in cavity walls are one of the main components of construction which, as the walls rapidly close in, become increasingly difficult to check. It is equally difficult to retrospectively check the incorporation of head restraints, bed joint reinforcement and windposts.
10.10.11 From evidence provided to the Inquiry by the chair of the Local Authority Building Standards Scotland (LABSS) group, the position adopted by Edinburgh Building Standards in relation to inspection of wall construction was not inconsistent with the general approach of other Authorities. He stated:
"Things like wall tie failures would not be picked up by a Construction Compliance Notification Plan. It is a risk-based inspection process. It would certainly look at things like foundations, fire-stopping and drainage which are higher risks. It would not necessarily focus on routine structural aspects. This is because we have to prioritise the available resources"
"We would only cover wall ties if we happened to be on site and see them going in, but not otherwise."
10.10.12 Section 6 of this Report referred to the fact that a significant number of occurrences of defective fire-stopping were identified as a result of recent specialist surveys undertaken. These defects were found to create breaches to the integrity of fire-rated partitions or enclosures across the 17 PPP1 projects.
10.10.13 It is likely, given the nature and location of these breaches as recorded in the reports of these surveys, that a significant proportion had existed from the time of the original construction of the PPP1 schools.
10.10.14 This is an aspect of construction which should be treated with immense care, given the potential impact of failure of the integrity of fire compartmentation in the case of fire. The Inquiry was advised that for this reason it is one of the areas which, like drainage, receives greater attention from building control officers.
10.10.15 However, in-depth inspections of fire-stopping, like that of the internal construction quality of cavity walls, can be difficult to undertake as much of the required fire-stopping is generally located in relatively inaccessible areas of buildings, such as roof-spaces and vertical ducts.
10.10.16 The inspection of fire-stopping by building control officers as part of their normal pre-completion inspection of buildings could realistically only be expected to identify defects that are readily accessible and visible. This level of inspection could not and would not pretend to offer to clients the level of assurance required in relation to the integrity of fire compartmentation.
10.10.17 Accordingly, it is the view of the Inquiry that it is inappropriate of clients to act on the assumption that they can rely solely on the visits to site by building control officers to ensure the quality of the construction of their buildings. This is equally true of Local Authority clients even though one of their other functions may be to administer the Building Standards system.