Risk, Health and Safety Information

CDM Discussion: Domestic clients and supply chains

The Construction (Design and Management) regulations (CDM) were revised in April.  The changes should be in minds of contractors and building companies working in the middle to large scale commercial sector.

 

The notification requirements now really only relate to project size as the regulations apply to all construction projects however large or small, and the triggers for appointing duty holders are different.  However there are several aspects to these regulations which will not be fully appreciated by the vast number of smaller contractors working for commercial clients and on people’s homes.  Welcome to the world of domestic clients and their supply chains.

 

Firstly the definition of construction has been broadened to include temporary structures and all types of fixed services including telecommunications and computer cabling.  Secondly the regulations now apply to the domestic sector with default statutory roles. There is a misconception that these regulations only apply to “big” construction projects and not to small domestic jobs.  But there could be just one contractor – and any type of construction work is enough.  Add one more trade contractor and technically a Principal Designer and Principal Contractor is required.

 

Many feel the launch of these regulations was poorly communicated and you have to ask what insurers and trade associations are doing to make their customers and members aware.

I cannot help but feel that the chickens will only come home to roost when there is an inspection by a regulator or insurance claim where paperwork is required and at that point the awful truth about the legal requirements will dawn.

 

We need to do much better in informing trades and small building companies, but will additional paperwork lead to better safety outcomes?  After all, there was leniency on documentation for small companies / trades persons under the withdrawn ACoPs for construction and for the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, but CDM 2015 requires some form of documentation (electronic or hardcopy) even if it’s adequacy is defined as proportionate to the scale of the project.

 

Proportionally and sensibly, every construction job technically needs a written plan.  Many can be extremely simple of course.

 

Take a boiler installation in a domestic residence: existing Gas Safety legislation require a Gas Safe registration for the installer, and Building Regulations require competence and installation sign off by both the competent gas and electrical installers.

 

So what does the Construction Phase Plan add to this?  Dare I say not a lot!  But you could argue that these regulations may oblige contractors to talk to each other to the client’s benefit as long as the contractors understand the “spirit” of what a construction phase plan is trying to achieve. 

Credit – iirsm – insight (issue 09/2015). 

HSE Prosecutions Round Up:

Roofing firmed fined for worker’s fatal fall

A building firm and one of its Directors have been fined a total of £87,000 after a sub-contractor fell through a rooflight.

Watershed (Roofing) engaged self-employed Barry Tyson to carry out refurbishments at a school in North Yorkshire.  Tyson was stripping felt from a flat roof, adding insulation and replacing rooflights, which were around 87.5cm sq and stood proud from the roof.  They were topped with domed plastic caps.

Before work began, the company carried out a risk assessment, based on a pre-start site meeting and roof survey, which stipulated all rooflights be removed and boarded before work started.  It was anticipated that the rooflights caps could be unscrewed.  But when Tyson got onto the roof, he found they were moulded to fixings that could not be detached.

Steven Derham, the company’s contract director, visited the site after the first day of   work.  After discussing the difficulty of dismantling the rooflights with the workforce and inspecting the lights’ size and shape, he concluded they were too small for anyone to fall through and that there was no need to board them over.

Work then began.  But the next day, as Tyson stood up from a kneeling position on the roof, he fell backwards through one of the unprotected apertures, landing approx. 2m below and sustaining fatal head injuries.

HSE inspector Martin Hutton said that when the difficulty with removing the rooflights was discovered, the refurbishment should have stopped immediately until a revised work plan was devised.  There was an obvious risk that someone could fall through the rooflights and the fact that they were protruding was in itself an obvious hazard.  When Hutton visited the site on the day of the accident, there were around a dozen unprotected rooflights.

At Bradford Crown Court, Watershed were fined £80,000 after admitting breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act.  Derham was fined £7,000 for the same offence by virtue of the Section 37(1) of the Act. 

Construction Company fined for insecure site

A construction company has been fined for safety failings which led to a two-year-old boy wandering onto a building site.

360 Property Limited were the principal contractor for a new build housing development at Oak Road, Blaina. An improvement notice was served on the site after site security issues were not addressed, despite a previous visit from a HSE inspector who highlighted concerns.

Newport Magistrates’ Court heard on 20 August how, between 22 January 2015 and 10 June 2015, the construction site was inadequately secured. On 21 May 2015, a two year old child had gained access to the site and was riding his bike when he fell into a drain, the cover of which had been removed. Fortunately, the child was shaken but not injured.

360 Property Limited, of Beaufort Street, Brynmawr, Ebbw Vale, was fined a total of £10,000, and ordered to pay £6,668.15 in costs after pleading guilty to two offences under Section 27(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and Section 18(2) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015, effectively one offence split by the change in regulations. 

Two companies fined for serious breaches in the removal of asbestos

A construction management company and a director of a construction company were fined for serious safety failings whilst working on a construction site at Kensington Church Street, London.

Work was carried out by three employees of construction firm Cowen Builders Limited, of Chelmsford, exposing them to asbestos over several days after it was disturbed. It will be several years before it is know if the exposure will result in asbestos related disease causing ill health and death.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard how, in May 2013, Cowen Builders Limited (CBL) had been contracted by Paragon Management UK Limited (Paragon) to carry out work at the premises. Prior to this work, asbestos had been identified in a survey by Paragon. Paragon failed to provide the details of the survey to CBL prior to the work starting. CBL failed to consider the possibility of asbestos being present and then continued the work without adequate measures in place after it was known the asbestos had been disturbed.

Paragon Management UK Limited, from Austin Friars, London, was fined a total of £20,000, and ordered to pay £2,373 in costs after pleading guilty to an offence under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They were also ordered to pay compensation to each of the three workers.

Kenneth W Cowen, sole director of Cowen Building Limited of South Woodham Ferrers, Chelmsford, Essex, was fined £15,000, and ordered to pay £2,373 in costs after pleading guilty to offences under Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.