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  After all, there was leniency on documentation for small companies / trades persons under the withdrawn ACoPs for construction and for the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, but CDM 2015 requires some form of documentation (electronic or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.

 

Our new round up of some of the more light-hearted H&S news:

Health & Safety gone mad…!

A local council has suggested that cows be dressed in high-viz reflective jackets to ensure they can be spotted by motorists at night.

Several cows have been struck by cars on the green at Hungerford, Berks, and last month one was so badly hurt it had to be put down by a vet.

Martin Crane, the mayor of Hungerford, went further and proposed the animals wear strings of flashing lights.

Local farmers have spent years trying to persuade the local authority to introduce traffic calming measures to stop motorists tearing through the common at high speed - not dressing up the cattle!

 

HSE press releases this week:

Manufacturer fined after worker’s roof fall

A company has been sentenced after exposing a worker a risk of fall from a roof from its premises.

Glasgow Sheriff Court heard that on 30 March 2010 an employee undertook roof cleaning work but Allied Vehicles Ltd had failed to ensure that work at height was properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner which was so far as was reasonably practicable, safe. 

The court was told that Allied Vehicles Ltd had no measures in place to prevent the risk of falling from the edge of the roof in question and falling through rooflights, exposing the employee to the risk of injury.

Allied Vehicles Ltd of Balmore Road, Glasgow pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £20,000 at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

 

Roofing contractor fined after employee fell through fragile roof

A roofing contractor has been fined after his employee fell seven metres through a roof on which he was working.

Sole trader Leighton Johnson and his employee were completing a job on a fragile roof at a factory in Kings Lynn on 11 August 2014.

The 26-year-old employee was kneeling on a scaffolding board on top of the roof when he fell forward through a roof light. He fell seven metres and landed on a pallet stacked with ceramic mugs below.

He suffered injuries to his back and sternum and wore a full body brace for six weeks after the incident.

Kings Lynn Magistrates’ Court heard how the defendant had not done what the law required – to ensure that work on a fragile roof such as this was planned and managed to ensure the safety of those involved.

HSE’s investigation found that there was no fall prevention or fall mitigation system in place and that the injured person was not harnessed or attached to anything, and was not wearing any safety equipment. There was a lack of any health and safety management or planning for the job and no adequate training or safety equipment had been provided.

Leighton Johnson was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £3,415 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to breaches of Regulations 4(1) and 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He must also pay a £300 victim surcharge.

Building contractor sentenced over unsafe working practices

A construction firm has been sentenced after admitting multiple safety issues at a Manchester site where it was carrying out a shop refurbishment. 

Betcat International Limited was hired by high street clothing chain Mango to carry out refurbishment and alteration works at its store on Market Street, Manchester. 

The project involved the full refurbishment of the multi-storey retail unit, including structural alterations to facilitate the installation of two new staircases, the installation of a lift shaft, and the removal and infilling of an existing stairway.

The site manager was employed by Betcat, and all of the operatives on site were subcontractors. 

On 29th July 2014, a HSE inspector visited the site to investigate safety concerns raised by a member of the public and to carry out an inspection of the construction works. A number of issues were identified during the visit, which are outlined below: 

–           Two operatives were seen using tower scaffolds which had not been properly erected with full edge protection. One of the tower scaffolds was also balanced at an angle on some steps so that the working platform was not level. 

–           Another operative was observed walking up the new steel staircase from the ground floor to the 1st floor. The staircase had no handrails or any form of edge protection to prevent falls from height. 

–           On the 2nd floor of the building, a man was observed standing on a structural steel beam which was spanning the large lift shaft opening in the concrete floor. There was nothing to stop this man from falling through to the floor below. The standard of guarding around the opening was poor on each floor and access was not prevented. There were also materials being stored in the area, indicating that operatives were approaching the opening frequently to retrieve materials. 

–           The site was heavily congested with materials, waste and other debris. There seemed to be no clear walkways and the lighting levels were very low. 

–           The toilet had been removed and there was no other toilet on site; nor were there any washing facilities. No other arrangements had been made regarding the provision of welfare facilities whilst the bathroom was being re-tiled and re-plumbed. 

–           An operative was seen using a small mitre saw which had no guard over the blade and he was pushing timber floor boards through the exposed blade by hand. 

–           A wood saw which was set up for cutting timber products had no dust extraction system fitted and there were piles of dust on all surfaces and large amounts of dust in the air. 

–           There were no fire alarms on site and the only fire extinguishers were out of date, having been left over from the previous shop. 

The HSE inspectors served six Prohibition Notices and two Improvement Notices, along with a Notification of Contravention. Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard all the issues were satisfactorily addressed by the company following HSE’s intervention. 

Betcat International Limited, 3 More London Riverside, London SE1 pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates Court to breaching    Section 2(1) and 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £40,000 (£20,000 per offence) with £3761 costs.

Scaffolding firm fined after worker killed in fall

A scaffolding firm has been fined after a roof worker fell nearly six metres to his death.

James Baillie, 53, suffered serious head injuries after he fell through a scaffold tower deck whilst carrying out roof work at a two storey domestic property in Thorntonhall, South Lanarkshire on 22 September 2011. He died from his injuries the next day.

Hamilton Sheriff Court heard that the scaffold deck was in a bad state of repair due to brown rot decay and when Mr Baillie walked on it, it broke, causing him to fall nearly six metres to the ground.

Extra Access Limited of c/o Scott-Moncrieff, 25 Bothwell Street, Glasgow pleaded guilty today (31 July) to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £40,000. 

Company sentenced after worker’s life changing injuries

A company was fined £40,000 after a worker suffered life changing injuries when part of a structure weighing 750kg fell on him.

Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee of Tunnel Tech Limited was dismantling polytunnel structures when the end bulkhead fell on him causing life threatening injuries.

A polytunnel is a tunnel made of polyethylene, usually semi-circular in shape, used to provide an effective environment for growing vegetation but can also protect crops from adverse weather.

On the day of the incident, the worker and three colleagues began to remove the cladding from the structures. They cut the side of the tunnel with a Stanley knife and pulled the outer layer and insulation off. It was decided that the internal steels would be removed first, leaving the internal hoop structure to remain. The structure had a layer of cladding on the inside then a layer of insulation inside a black plastic liner which was covered with a waterproof liner.

The court heard how the men applied the same method of removal but the sheet started to get quite hard to pull. One of the other men working suggested that they use the fork lift truck to pull the sheet off with a rope attached to the fork lift. The fork lift was driven away from the tunnel.

While the other men were a safe distance from the operation, the injured worker was moving some materials on the ground between the tunnel that was being dismantled and the skip it was being disposed of in. The end of the tunnel, consisting of the gable wall and weighing 750kg was pulled from the hoop structure and struck the worker causing severe initially life threatening injuries as he became stuck underneath the sheeting.

The worker, who does not wish to be named suffered a catalogue of injuries including a collapsed left lung, a ruptured diaphragm, displaced intestines, a broken pelvis, six rib fractures and fractures to his spine. He spent 10 days in intensive care, and a further 15 days in hospital.

The court was told by the HSE that the incident was wholly preventable. It said if a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out then it would have identified the need to use suitably competent people with specialist skills and knowledge to carry out the work safely.

It would have also identified the risks and the measures it needed to adopt, such as the need for the task to be planned to prevent danger, and for exclusions zones that would have eliminated the possibility of the injured person being in the danger zone when the end gable wall fell.

Tunnel Tech Limited, The Old Airfield, Leckford, Stockbridge, Hampshire, admitted three breaches of regulations; it was fined £20,000 for the first charge – Regulation 29 of Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and £10,000 for each of the other two charges – Regulation 4 of CDM and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations. It was also ordered to pay full costs of £1809. 

HSE Myth Busters:

Child booster seat unavailable at cinema

Issue

At a recent cinema visit, the enquirer asked for a child booster seat but was told that these were not available due to ‘health and safety’ reasons.

Panel opinion

This cinema chain usually provides booster seats but was in the process of changing out old ones for a new design and did not have any available on this occasion. Instead of explaining this, the assistant resorted incorrectly to a "health and safety" excuse. The company has acknowledged the poor handling and taken steps to avoid this happening again.

 

CDM 2015 - update

The HSE answers a couple of frequently asked questions about the role of the principal designer (PD):

Who can carry out the role of the principal designer (PD)?  

The PD must be a designer - an architect, consulting engineer or quantity surveyor, or anyone who specifies and alters designs as part of their work.  They can also be clients, contractors and tradespeople if they carry out design work or arrange for or instruct persons under their control to do so.  They must have the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience (SKE) or organisational capability to carry out all the functions and responsibilities assigned to them in Regulations 11 and 12 and have control over the pre-construction phase.

Commonly, the PD is likely to be:  

·         for larger projects - a design practice or a technical department of a principal contractor e.g. a principal contractor doing design and build;  

·         for smaller projects - a self-employed architect/technician, small design practice, a project management company, a client’s internal estates management team, or even a specialist tradesperson such as an electrician where they lead on the design function;  

So long as they meet the criteria of; 

1.    being a designer;

2.    having the relevant SKE or organisational capability, and;

3.    being in control of the pre-construction phase.

Does CDM 2015 require the principal designer to be a member of the project design team?

No.  The PD must be appointed by the client as soon as it is established that more than one contractor is or is likely to be working on the project to plan, manage, monitor and control the design stages.   

If the client gets it right and appoints the PD early at the concept stage, then the appointment should commonly take place before the project design team has been fully identified or assembled.  The PD may provide their own design team, appoint a team or manage and control any team appointed by others.    

Whatever the model, which provides maximum flexibility for the client, - the PD must be able to prove to the client that they have the SKE or organisational capability to fulfil all the functions - proportionate to the nature, size, complexity and risk profile of the project.  Once in place, the PD should be in control of the design team so that they, and the design team, can carry out their roles effectively.  

Can a client carry out the role of the principal designer?

Yes. If a client fails to, or decides not to appoint a PD, the law provides that the PD role is automatically assigned to the client.   

Many clients will choose to take on the PD role themselves but irrespective of whether by choice or otherwise, the client must have the SKE or organisational capability to fulfil all the PD functions and responsibilities effectively.    

HSE Issue Safety Alert:

 

Extendable Scaffolding Loading Bay Gate - use of cable ties to secure loose mesh and unsafe means of operation

The HSE has become aware that a number of manufacturers/suppliers are marketing an extendable scaffold loading bay gate that does not satisfy legal requirements or applicable standards when in some configurations. When extended the loading bay gate, which forms part of the edge protection on a scaffold, is not robust enough to fulfil this function and is therefore not suitable and sufficient to comply with the Work at Height Regulations 2005. This safety notice applies to all similar types of loading bay gate as described below.

The loading bay gates subject to this safety notice originate from a variety of manufacturers/suppliers and comprise two panels made up of tube and mesh.

One panel section is fixed length and the other is telescopic and can be adjusted to the required width of the loading bay. This allows a width adjustment from approximately 2300mm to approximately 3900mm. The mesh infill spans the full width and height of each panel. There is no horizontal mid rail. This loading bay gate design is reported to be available in steel and in aluminium.

The mesh infill is typically 3 mm gauge on a 50 mm square pattern and each edge is welded to the fixed length panel. To allow the telescopic panel to slide during adjustment the mesh on this section is loose. Supplier instructions seen suggest the loose mesh should be fixed to the gate perimeter using plastic cable ties after this panel has been telescoped to a width suitable for the loading bay.

This type of gate has been found on a number of construction sites where the mesh was loose and able to detach when pushed so would not be able to resist a person leaning or in particular falling against it, and would also allow loose materials to fall from the platform.

The gates in question open by rotating upwards around a pivot fitting mounted approximately 500mm inboard of the gate. Because this type of gate has very short rear levers it is usually opened by lifting the handles on top of the gate, placing a worker right at the edge of the platform with a gap beneath the gate that can exceed 1.5 metres high. When fully open there is a gap beneath the gate of approximately 1 metre height although this is about 1 metre inboard of the open edge of the loading bay.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 Schedule 2 requires edge protection used for construction purposes to be of suitable strength and rigidity and to comprise the equivalent of a top rail, a mid-rail and a toe board. Where no mid rail is present any mesh panels or similar must be able to achieve an equivalent level of containment.

This safety alert does not apply to designs of upward rotating loading bay gate that are robust and are operated from the rear of the loading bay and which close off access to the loading bay when the gate is open. These should already comply with BS EN 12811-1:2003 ‘Scaffolds – Performance requirements and general design’ which sets out the standards expected for loading bay gates.

Action required:

·         For gates of the type described in this safety alert stainless steel cable ties will be accepted as an interim measure for securing the mesh panel, and should be installed to the gate supplier’s instructions. Typically this will be one cable tie per 300mm. Unless the gate manufacturer/supplier allows a lighter duty cable tie, ties rated at minimum 75kg loop tensile strength should be used. Note that most cable ties are not designed to be suitable for reuse following loosening or removal. Alternatively, this aspect of the safety alert can be complied with by installing the extendible gate in the fully closed (narrowest) configuration thereby not requiring the use of cable ties.

·         Stainless steel cable ties should be included as part of the 7 day scaffold inspection.

·         Options to allow the gates in question to be opened without workers being able to slip or trip and fall through the gap underneath the open gate or the large gap while opening the gate include remote opening using rope over a scaffold rail or pulley fixed above and inboard of the closed gate. Or moving the gate pivot further inboard and extending the operating levers - this may remove the need to fully rotate the gate during opening. Both these methods allow operation from the rear of the loading bay platform - ie at least 2m back from the open edge.

·         HSE has been informed that the supplier of one model of the gates in question is working on a design change to bring the gate to a standard that meets EN 12811-1 during operation and use. HSE expects manufacturers/suppliers of similar gates to do the same. These improvements will need to address the securing of the mesh infill panels; the risk of the gate opening due to a person or materials falling against it; and the level of fall protection provided when the gate is operated or open.

·         Cable ties are not a permanent solution, However it is appreciated that many of these gates are manufactured and shipped from overseas and that changes will take time to implement. HSE will accept the correct use of stainless steel cable ties as an interim measure until the end of December 2016. After that date Enforcement Notices will be considered on a case by case basis for inadequate gates and/or gate designs. During the interim period gate installations that do not meet the minimum standard set out in this document will be subject to appropriate enforcement action.