Health and safety info centre

SAMPLE CONTENT

Here you can get a sneak preview of the kind of content you’ll find once you subscribe to the Info Centre. Simply choose the kind of content you want to look at and explore…

Express Park Construction Company Limited and Oxford Architects Partnership (2010)

Add to scrapbook

Case overview

An architectural practice and a construction company involved in the development of a conference centre in Somerset have been fined a total of £195,000 following a fatality at the site.

Bristol Crown Court heard that Express Park Construction Company Ltd (EPCC) was the Principal Contractor during the building of the conference centre at Express Park in Bridgwater. The centre had been completed and was in use when staff at the site reported a problem with the air conditioning.

On 26 January 2005, EPCC sub-contracted H&F Air Conditioning Ltd to carry out the repairs. Engineer, David Cairns, was working on the air conditioning plant, which was built on a platform accessed via a ladder at the edge of a flat roof. The edge was only protected by a low parapet, and as Mr Cairns was climbing down the ladder he lost his footing and fell over the wall. He fell nine metres to the ground and died in hospital as a result of his injuries.

Case outcomes

“The loss of David has deeply affected us all and he will be greatly missed. Our hope is that lessons are learnt within the construction industry so that other similar incidents are prevented.  Safety should be paramount during all stages of the building process so that another family doesn’t have to suffer the loss that we have.”

Expert review

In this case it is likely that EPCC could not demonstrate an integrated Design Risk Management (DRM) system to prove that they had done all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate the risk of falling from height.

The process of DRM involves, in the first instance, identifying health and safety hazards or hazardous activities associated with the construction work of a structure. 

Under CDM, Designers are then required to eliminate or minimise the identified risks as far as reasonably practicable. This could be achieved either through changing or modifying aspects of the design. Information about the remaining significant residual risks should then be communicated to those carrying out the construction work and the end user. This enables the risks to then be managed safely during the construction process, maintenance, cleaning and eventual demolition.

In following this hierarchy of control, safety harnesses should only ever be used as a last resort. There are numerous reasons why this is the case, namely:

• ensuring that workers actually wear the equipment in the first instance can be problematic;
• providing adequate user training and instruction to the worker can be a time consuming process;
• it only protects the individual who is wearing it – priority should be given over collective measures; and
• it does not necessarily prevent the user from actually falling – it just breaks the fall.

In addition, the system and the harness equipment itself would require periodic testing and maintenance – creating a headache for those required to manage it. Where designers specify the use of Personal Protective Equipment as a control measure they would have to clearly demonstrate that other priority measures could not be achieved.

CDM does not require zero risk designs and there has to be a balance between a quality build, being aesthetically pleasing, and health, safety and welfare. However, the higher the risk the more effort that needs to put in place to controlling it. To re-emphasise, a DRM process should be embraced throughout the design process. As a CDM Coordinator I have seen, on too many occasions, Designers using generic risk assessments and paperwork as a substitute for successful risk management. 

In this case it is likely that EPCC could not demonstrate an integrated Design Risk Management (DRM) system to prove that they had done all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate the risk of falling from height.

The process of DRM involves, in the first instance, identifying health and safety hazards or hazardous activities associated with the construction work of a structure. 

Under CDM, Designers are then required to eliminate or minimise the identified risks as far as reasonably practicable. This could be achieved either through changing or modifying aspects of the design. Information about the remaining significant residual risks should then be communicated to those carrying out the construction work and the end user. This enables the risks to then be managed safely during the construction process, maintenance, cleaning and eventual demolition.

In following this hierarchy of control, safety harnesses should only ever be used as a last resort. There are numerous reasons why this is the case, namely:

• ensuring that workers actually wear the equipment in the first instance can be problematic;
• providing adequate user training and instruction to the worker can be a time consuming process;
• it only protects the individual who is wearing it – priority should be given over collective measures; and
• it does not necessarily prevent the user from actually falling – it just breaks the fall.

In addition, the system and the harness equipment itself would require periodic testing and maintenance – creating a headache for those required to manage it. Where designers specify the use of Personal Protective Equipment as a control measure they would have to clearly demonstrate that other priority measures could not be achieved.

CDM does not require zero risk designs and there has to be a balance between a quality build, being aesthetically pleasing, and health, safety and welfare. However, the higher the risk the more effort that needs to put in place to controlling it. To re-emphasise, a DRM process should be embraced throughout the design process. As a CDM Coordinator I have seen, on too many occasions, Designers using generic risk assessments and paperwork as a substitute for successful risk management.