• Total Access Higher Safety
    Turner Access Chipmunk Data

    DESIGNERS FACE HSE INVOICES OVER NON-COMPLIANCE

    HSE call for design decisions justified by “risk rather than cost”

    An Open Letter from the HSE to the ‘structural timber industry’ has been published (29/10).

    The letter is intended for “all parties involved in the design, specification, procurement and construction of timber frame structures” explaining HSE expectations in relation to the management of fire risks prior to and during the construction of timber frame structures.

    The Structural Timber Association (STA), which represents the industry’s manufacturers and suppliers, has cooperated with HSE in producing the letter.

    HSE approach to off-site fire risks

    Fire precautions during the construction of timber frame structures fall within HSE remit. See the HSE published guidance on  Fire Safety in Construction.

    The regulator points out that duty holders have responsibility to ensure the safety and health of workers and those who might be affected by their work activities, including those arising from fire risks. Serious incidents have arisen where fires involving timber frame structures under construction have affected neighbouring buildings and HSE has therefore worked with the STA to produce the guidance.

    In summary HSE state:

    “All those making design and procurement decisions that significantly affect fire risk should consider and reduce the risk and consequences of fire during the construction phase through DESIGN. Failure so to do may constitute a material breach for which HSE will apply its Fee for Intervention scheme to those duty holders who have contributed to the breach.”

    Justify decisions in terms of risk rather than cost

    HSE state that CDM 2007 Regulation 11 requires risks to be considered and eliminated/reduced so far as is reasonably practicable through the design process adding:

    “The primary legal responsibility for assessing off-site fire risk rests with those making design and procurement decisions before work starts on site. Designers and manufacturers of timber frame structures duties under CDM Regulation 11 cannot be passed on to the Principal Contractor.

    The STA publication Design guide to separating distances during construction is intended to be used at the design and procurement stages of a project. HSE commends the STA for the substantial work carried out and make it freely available to all rather than being restricted to STA members.

    Following the guidance is “not compulsory” and if an alternative approach to the guidance is used, a competent person with fire engineering qualifications and experience will need to determine the risks and to identify appropriate controls. HSE go on to state:

    “The persons involved should justify their decisions and recommendations in terms of risk, rather than cost.”

    Design process to be followed

    The letter states that for a proposed structure, the STA guidance enables minimum separation distances to be determined. Where space does not provide the separation distances required for a Category A structure, it provides guidance on selecting alternative timber frame structures to provide an adequate level of fire protection to neighbours during the construction phase.

    If a Category B or C structure or alternative fire engineered solution is needed, then it should be specified when the timber frame is being procured. Everyone in the supply chain has a responsibility to work towards this end. In practical terms HSE expects:

    • An assessment of the particular site and its constraints when the method of construction is being considered;
    • For timber-framed structures, assessment can be undertaken using STA’s ‘Design guide to separating distances during construction’;
    • The assessment should identify that where there is insufficient separation distance to allow a Category A structure, the appropriate level of Category B or C to match the site constraints (unless an alternative fire engineered solution is developed by a competent person) should be recommended;
    • The appropriate category frame should be specified to the manufacturers;
    • Timber frame manufacturers, including non-STA members have a significant role to play in ensuring appropriate specification and procurement of frames. Manufacturers should be advising their customers of the guidance and requirements. Use of the STA audit checklist may assist manufacturers in compiling records to demonstrate the steps they have taken to discharge their obligations under CDM Regulation 11 and record who has made specific decisions;
    • Any specific information and instructions that must be followed to guarantee the specified category or approved solution to be achieved on site must be passed to the Principal Contractor;
    • The Principal Contractor must adhere to the conditions required to achieve the specified category of structure; and
    • The Principal Contractor must devise and apply appropriate fire precautions during the build, including control of hot works, provision of fire warning and extinguishing systems, provision of means of escape etc.

    Finally the letter states:

    “HSE inspectors expect duty holders to comply with CDM Regulation 11 using this guidance to assist. Where a duty holder chooses not to follow the STA guidance but to implement a fire-engineered solution, standards of the equivalence to the guidance should be adopted.

    Duty holders should expect that in the latter circumstances, if lower standards are adopted then HSE may consider there to have been a material breach of health and safety law attracting charges under our Fee for Intervention Scheme”

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    SAFETY IS DEAD … LONG LIVE HEALTH AT WORK

    Simple and realistic framework to help unify thinking about H&S

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2017

    REVERSING TELEHANDLER CAUSED SITE DEATH

    Principal Contractor and contractor held jointly responsible

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 26th May 2017

    PLANNING AND DESIGN ERRORS BEHIND FOUR DEATHS

    Prison sentence and fines follow steel cage collapse tragedy

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 26th May 2017

    FAILED HSE SITE INSPECTION ENDS IN COURT

    Injury not required for accountability over poor safety standards

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 26th May 2017

    RISK ASSESSMENT BREACH PROMPTS £400,000 FINE

    Fatality revealed assessment was not suitable and sufficient

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 24th May 2017

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 24th MAY 2017

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 24th May 2017

    LACK OF SAFE PLATFORMS FOR WORK ON CRANE

    Major crane hire company erred on work at height precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd May 2017

    SECOND CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CASE IN WEEK

    Double fatality represented pattern of serious neglect

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd May 2017

    DIRECTORS JAILED AND FIRM FINED FOR MANSLAUGHTER

    Client paid £100,000 less than economic cost for roof work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd May 2017

    SOLAR PANEL FIRM AND DIRECTOR IN COURT

    Ineffective use of fall arrest no substitute for proper precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd May 2017

    FIRM FAILED TO SECURE COMPETENT ASSISTANCE

    Court holds manager to account over inaction on risk management

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd May 2017

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 17th MAY 2017

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2017

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 10th MAY 2017

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th May 2017

    GROUND WORKER TRAPPED BY EXCAVATION COLLAPSE

    Fellow workers dug earth so injured workman could breath

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th May 2017

    MAJOR UK FIRMS FAILED ON VEHICLE MANAGEMENT

    Worker struck and injured when towed trolley and load overturned

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th May 2017

    MAGISTRATES FINE FIRM £250,000 OVER ROOF FALL

    Solar panel firm failed to control risk and supervise works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th May 2017

    HSE REFURBISHMENT CAMPAIGN ENDS £750,000 FINE

    Contractor fined under CDM after failing to act on asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2017

    SITE MANAGER JAILED OVER DEATH OF PASSER-BY

    Failure to secure windows led to death and manslaughter sentence

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2017

    ROGUE GAS FITTER JAILED FOR 16 MONTHS

    Work unsafe and exposed home residents at risk of harm

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    LADDER ASSOCIATION ISSUES NEW SAFETY GUIDANCE

    Guidance comes amidst concerns surrounding unsafe telescopic ladders

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    FATALITY: FALL ON NEW HOMES PROJECT

    Workman died falling from a ladder on construction project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    FIRM ADMITS GUILT AFTER DEATH OF FOUR WORKMEN

    Guilty plea entered by company on first day of Crown Court trial

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    FIRM FINED £2 MILLION OVER WORKPLACE DEATH

    Unsafe stacking of plastic bales claimed life of cleaner

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 1st MAY 2017

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017

    CONCRETE STAIRCASE CAUSED FATAL CRUSHING

    Lifting operations were unsafe and poorly supervised on project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd May 2017
    Turner Access Chipmunk Data
    Total Access Higher Safety