A council-commissioned asbestos survey of Cwmcarn High School will not go ahead after the school’s governors decided to take full responsibility and liability for the site.
Since then, the school’s pupils have re-located to the former Coleg Gwent campus in Ebbw Vales.
Caerphilly County Borough Council had said it would carry out a full and thorough asbestos survey, but this will not go ahead after the school governors wrote to the local authority stating that as a foundation school, it is responsible for the site.
The council has said it is “concerned and disappointed” by the decision.
Cllr Harry Andrews, leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council, said: “Our main priority has always been the health and wellbeing of pupils and staff at the school. We took swift and decisive action when the scale of the asbestos problem was identified and we planned to undertake further investigations to discover the full extent of the problem before agreeing a way forward.
“Unfortunately, the Governing Body have now frustrated this process by insisting that they take full responsibility of the site, as is their right as a foundation school, but we wanted to work with them to try and resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
“We will be writing to parents and staff explaining the implications of this decision. Our key responsibility remains the welfare and education of the pupils and we will be closely monitoring the Governor’s actions at the school. Parents can rest assured that the council will not allow any pupils to return to a building that poses any health risk to their children.”
A separate and independent investigation into asbestos management at the school is currently being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive.
Update: Gary Thomas, chair of the school’s governing body has written to Caerphilly County Borough Council demanding a meeting a recall of a council press release.
The full response can be read here.
This is a dangerous move, the Governors could make themselves liable for huge costs.
If we look at Caerphilly website it only claims the governors have claimed responsibility for the site not for the previous damage of asbestos. Perhaps the nature of how Caerphilly have handled the situation has urged Cwmcarn into taking decisive action into questioning the legality of the actions by Caerphilly CBC especially when it clearly states that There are no levels exhibited which are beyond acceptable levels. In this newspaper you also stated the findings had been misinterpreted – (from the last council meeting) – yet Caerphilly made no statement to clarify how it was misinterpreted. The one thing that has not been present from CBCC has been transparency – I suggest their opaqueness has led to this decision by Cwmcarn.
Maybe people need to look at Cwmcarn's response. Make of it what you will: http://tinyurl.com/d642tfo
Anyone else suspect that Caerphilly have mishandled the situation and are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility prior to an independent survey? I suspect a cover-up
Caerphilly County Borough Council are misleading people here. Read the letter that was written by the governors to the council on 5th December. As a parent of someone at the school I am not happy with C.C.B.C. Sick of reading and hearing the wrong information through the media. Who's interests are you looking after CCBC . Not the pupils of the school .
If this is/was a foundation school was Caerphilly responsible for the erection of the building and installation of the asbestos?. My experience in the steel industry suggests any work on removing asbestos must be done with great care. The future health of the children is in the hands of the Governors do they know what they are doing,in post industrial Britain there are few qualified engineers left.
The recent `Investigation Report` clarifies the lines of legal responsibility for this issue in `school` buildings, it say`s:-
"At a premises level the school Head Teacher and the Governing Body hold the DUTY HOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES under the provisions of regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 on a day to day basis to ensure that the asbestos containing materials included within the buildings are safely managed and not disturbed or damaged by normal occupancy activities or by maintenance activities undertaken within the building"
That appears, if it is correct, to mean that the Governors have responsibility for this issue in CWMCARN, and, it appears school governors at every other school have the same duty of care responsibility, foundation school or not. But it follows that the local authority have a `general` responsibility to ALL citizens in respect to the issues of Asbestos in buildings, particularly, school buildings where children may be exposed to this obnoxious material.
It appears in this case that the Governors have accepted this responsibility and absolved the Caerphilly Council and the rest of the Boroughs Citizens from any liability, the fact still remains, ( politics aside) that the Caerphilly Council have ensured their responsibilities in respect to the regulations have been seen to be fulfilled by commissioning the report in the first place.
It certainly appears to be prejudicial decision of the Governors to accept responsibility in the public way that they have, and, I wonder if that could effect the way their efficacy liability insurers will view their position in respect to covering the Governors liabilities in this respect. The Governors should work hand in hand with Caerphilly council, and its professional officers, to deal with these serious issues, a very unwise move to ignore them in this on-going situation which could so easily end in expensive and complicated litigation.
I feel the media would be remiss not to look at the questions that are being asked by concerned parents of the handling of the entire situation by Caerphilly County Borough Council. Many of these parents are working together and asking these questions via twitter and Facebook. Groups such as @SaveCwmcarn and @CwmcarnSOS appear to be presenting a lot of questions that i believe true investigative reporters who are not happy to be just be spoon fed by the council should be looking into.
The inference in `riq`s` comment is that the Borough Council may not have acted, or continues to act, in a way that is not open and transparent?.
It is a fact, according to the regulations reproduced on the Observer, that the responsibility for this situation rest with the Governors of the School:-
“At a premises level the school Head Teacher and the Governing Body hold the DUTY HOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES under the provisions of regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 on a day to day basis to ensure that the asbestos containing materials included within the buildings are safely managed and not disturbed or damaged by normal occupancy activities or by maintenance activities undertaken within the building”
I fail to see why the citizens, throughout the borough, should be subject to any costs in respect to this debacle when the regulation clearly rests responsibility at the feet of the School Governors, and, the Chairman of Governors appears to have wrestled that responsibility from the borough Council and assumed total responsibility for it.
No contest, surly?.
I think there is a lot more to the whole situation and we must be aware that the building was not erected by Cwmcarn but by the local borough at the time. There is still vagueness over responsibility AND the governors have not accepted liability – please check your facts. Numerous surveys and requests have been placed over the last 12 years. Anyone who wishes to comment must read the wider information – the governors have only requested an independent survey – an action that is surely sensible.
The transparency concern is over the wider issue and the anti-Cwmcarn agenda.
The below is an extract from the manager of the firm (Santia) that carried out the asbestos testing and issued the school closure ensuing report.
"Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) 3 days ago
What is the right analytical method when assessing asbestos fibre concentrations – as we all know PCM has been around for a long time and is the preferred method currently in use for the associated cost, but as with all methods it has it's limitations in so far as fibre distinction. Following recent discussions and referencing Regulation 17 CAR 2012, PCM and indeed SEM were not recommended by government departments and TEM was the preferred method. Are we being misled? or are the powers that be not so sure themselves."
Gareth V
This question/statement was posed on the Linked In asbestos in schools network 2days ago.
The govenors have stopped the council sending in Santia once again to revisit the site to carry out more readings as they are extremely dubious of their report and original findings. The council have not allowed the HSE on site, can they do this?
The governors are blaming the council and Santia and the council and Santia are blaming the govenors lack of upkeep, yet no supporting evidence had been provided to show risk was not adequately managed or indeed that there was any cause for concern prior to the Santia visit.
The govenors and parents want an independent review. The papers want a quick, easy to digest scandal and possibly a few untimely deaths I dare say, such is my respect for fair and accurate reporting at this moment in time!
The media, the council and Santia is interested in saving face and appear to be acting a little defensively, …. I wonder why? Whilst the Children, Teachers, Parents and Govenors want to save their school and work to achieve this.
Certainly from the outside looking in this may appear like desperate parents trying to save their school but I suspect something much more sinister and contrived.
I am not suggesting the local media are insulting their readers perhaps they are just ignorant but what do you make of it all? Is Gareth's statement rhetorical is it insecurity?
What is absolutely certain is that Children, Parents and Teachers have aright to some clarity and constructive advice. This whole business is causing anxieties and this disruption and displacement to our children's education is affecting them. We need real answers, resolutions and a plan to move forward.
Surly, when the building was erected by Caerphilly Council, or whoever, it was done in accordance with all regulations which applied at the time in respect to the use of Asbestos?. No Case there then.
I agree that the Caerphilly Borough council are not exactly the best Authority to rely on when it comes to being open and transparent on most things, that may be due to a lack of respect for the citizens they serve or it maybe because some are intellectually incompetent, but, what appears to be clear to anyone following this story in the Observer, and, reading the report in which the consultants pointed to the `Law` on this case, the Governors of this school, ( as would be the case in any other school) have the responsibility of care in this matter. When members of the public then read the letter written to the Authority by the Chair of Governors, it appears that the Governors have deliberately prevented the Caerphilly Council from dealing with the issues currently being experienced in the building, albeit, the future safety of the attendees at the school has been dealt with by removing them from this deadly environment.
If there are elements of mistrust between the School Governors and the Caerphilly Council, particularly if one side feels there is a hidden agenda (on the part of the Caerphilly council) not to just deal with the issues of Asbestos, but use the situation to ` re-align` the status of the school or to dispose of it altogether, then for goodness sake say so!!!!!!.
There is a wider costs implication in this case to all the ratepayers THROUGHOUT the borough, so we have a right to know what that maybe, currently of course, according the regulations reproduced by the Observer, it appears all that cost and responsibility will rest with the governors and not the ratepayers, and as the governors have denied the Council the opportunity to DEAL with the current situation that appears to be that.
I predict the Governors are getting themselves into a pickle, all school governors have to work with the lEA`s in their areas, politics aside, and it certainly appears that politics are buried in this situation somewhere, so for the sake of the Caerphilly county Borough`s ratepayers get on with it.
It's clear the governors have commissioned their independent survey before a further santia report is commissioned. It seems clear the governors are actually wanting to prevent further waste of tax payers money if as Santia themselves have stated the levels found are not beyond safe levels in f/ml3.
So far £1.4 million has been pledged for Cwmcarn to move to ebbw Vale. A week of independent survey – is surely worth it to be sure further surveys and subsequent costs are a necessity.