Risk, Health and Safety Information

Dover man fined after failing asbestos regulations

A Kent-based partner of a development company has been prosecuted after dangerous conditions were found at a demolition site in Dover.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Allan Smith for failing to undertake an asbestos assessment and for not securing a demolition site.

Canterbury Magistrates' Court heard on 19 April 2010 that the Royal Oak Public House, Sandwich Road, Whitfield, Dover, was purchased for development. Over the next six months, Mr Smith from ATS Developments acted as the principal contractor to demolish the building.

On 4 October 2010, HSE was contacted by a member of the public who complained that the site was insecure and children were playing on the building site. An HSE inspector visited on 7 October 2010 to find the pub partially demolished and the site unfenced, despite there being a public footpath running across the land.

The HSE investigation found that no asbestos survey had been carried out prior to demolition, which remained the case even after HSE sent a letter to the partners stating that a survey needed to be undertaken. An Improvement Notice was served on 8 October 2010 about site security.

After the hearing, HSE's Inspector Caroline Penwill said:

"Mr Smith did not think about the risks he may have exposed his workers and members of the public to by cutting corners.

"Before anyone undertakes any demolition works they must consider whether asbestos is present and take precautionary steps such as carrying out an asbestos survey.

"The site was also very unsecure and exposed local children to the hazards of a building site. What makes this case all the more disappointing is that Mr Smith continued to work after the HSE advised him to undertake an asbestos survey.

Allan Smith, from Bowling Green Lane, Deal, Kent, pleaded guilty to Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 27(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. He was fined£7,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,000.