may 2019 new iosh construction safety courses for site ... · genuine course certificate issued by...

t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)

May 2019

We have now launched two completely new

courses for people that work in the

construction industry:

• IOSH Safety, health and environment for

construction site managers (SHECSM); and

• IOSH Safety, health and environment for

construction workers (SHECW).

SHECSM replaces our existing Managing safely

in Construction, which will no longer be

available for sale from 31 July 2019. Students

wanting to complete Managing safely in

Construction will need to enrol before 31 July

2019. They will then have up to 190 days to

complete the course.

SHECSM is split into four modules:

• Understanding the background

• Preparing for work

• Setting up the site

• Construction phase health and safety

Each module concludes with a mock

assessment, designed to prepare students for

the end of course assessment and to enable

students to benchmark their understanding.

Th

The syllabi for both courses were laun

The end of course assessment comprises of an

online multiple choice test and a risk

assessment project.

Students that complete the course receive a

genuine course certificate issued by IOSH.

SHECW is intended for anyone that works on a

construction site, either in the UK or abroad. It

takes between 6 to 8 study-hours to

complete, and like SHECSM, it is 100% online.

We are

pleased to announce that HSQE Ltd is the first

SHECW is split into five modules:

• Understanding the background

• Law and enforcement

• General site safety

• High risk activities

• Health

Each module concludes with a mock

assessment designed to benchmark

understanding and to prepare the student for

IOSH suite

of

courses, including:

the final assessment. The final assessment

itself if an online multiple choice test.

John Constable, HSQE Ltd Managing Director

said of the courses “We’re delighted to be the

first company to have 100% online versions of

these courses approved by IOSH. All our early

adopters have given them five star reviews.”

You can find out more about both courses by

visiting our website at www.hsqe.co.uk

New IOSH construction safety courses for site managers and workers launched

IOSH Safety, Health & Environment

for Construction Site Managers


for Construction Site Workers

NEW NEW ENDS 31/7/19


May 2019

For managers & supervisors

Approved online IOSH courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk


for Construction Site Managers


for Construction Site Workers

For any workers

For directors & senior executives

For construction site managers

For any construction workers

During the quality assurance review

conducted by IOSH

Rated

“OUTSTANDING”

Rated

“EXCELLENT”

NEW

NEW

Why HSQE Ltd for your IOSH training?

• No hidden fees

• Immediate start

• Fully IOSH approved

• Tutor support included

• Access your course 24/7 online

Find out more at www.hsqe.co.uk

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-managing-safely/


May 2019

A plastering contractor has been fined after a self-employed

plasterer fell from height during the construction of a house.

The worker fell 2.4m from the landing. He spent three weeks in

hospital and suffered fractures to his wrists, ribs, eye sockets,

skull and nose.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

found the work was not properly planned, managed and

monitored by the plastering contractor. There was a failure to

plan / use the right equipment (such as guard rails). There was

a failure to manage the work to ensure that effective

preventative and protective measures were put in place to

control the risk of falling. There was also a failure to monitor

the work effectively as the need for guard rails was not

identified during routine checks.

Michael Fletcher pleaded guilty a breach under Regulation 6

(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was fined

£2,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £935.60.

A farmer has been fined following a

worker’s fatal fall through the fragile

roof of a milking shed on the farm.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how on

19 July 2018 self-employed contractor

David Alan Rees was fatally injured

whilst he was clearing out the valley

gutter from a ladder at Knolton Farm,

Overton, Wrexham.

An investigation by the Health and

Safety Executive (HSE) found that

Robert Latham failed to plan the work

at height and did not have any suitable

equipment available to do the work

safely.

Robert Latham pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(2) of the

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £26,000.

He has also been ordered to pay costs of £3922.60 and a

surcharge of £170.

Key lessons

• Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe

methods of working and to provide the necessary

information, instruction and training to their workers and

contractors in the safe system of working

• If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to

the incident, the death could have been prevented

Plastering contractor fined Farmer fined after a worker suffers fatal fall from height


May 2019

A company and its director have been fined after a sub-

contractor suffered serious burns from the steam of a boiler

while working at a house in Braintree.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how Pure Flame Solutions

Limited was contracted to install and commission an oil-fired

boiler in an out-building of the house. The Director of Pure

Flame Solutions, undertook this work. On 14 December 2016, a

sub-contractor working nearby was seriously burned on 55% of

his body when the weld on the boiler failed, releasing steam.


found that the director carried out the installation in a way

that the safety critical elements – the pressure relief valve and

expansion tank – could be isolated from the rest of the system,

contrary to the manufacturers’ installation instructions. He

then failed to undertake a number of checks on the system, to

ensure it was safe to commission. The boiler had become over-

pressurised, causing the failure of a weld on the heat

exchanger, and allowing super-heated water to flash off as

steam.

Pure Flame Solutions Limited pleaded guilty to breaching

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The

company was fined £2000 and ordered to pay costs of £2603.

The director pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) (by virtue

of Section 37) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He

was ordered to undertake 150 hours of unpaid work in the

community over the next 12 months and ordered to pay costs

of £2603.

Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Jessica Churchyard said

“The contractor’s injuries were life-changing, and he could

have easily been killed.

“This serious incident could have been prevented had Daniel

Clarke undertaken the necessary safety checks to ensure it was

safe to commission the boiler. Companies should be aware

that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement

action against those that fall below the required standards.”

A tinplate printing company in Swansea has been fined after an

employee was seriously injured when working on a printing

press.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how on Monday 19 June 2017,

an employee was working at the company’s premises at Afon

Works, Bryntywod, Llangyfelach, Swansea, when he sustained

a serious crushing and de-gloving injury to his hand after he

became trapped between the rollers of the printing press,

whilst trying to rectify an intermittent fault.


found that the front guards electronic interlock device had

been defeated.

In addition, there was no risk assessment for fault finding on

the printing press and no safe system of work, including

providing suitable training for employees.

Tinmasters Swansea Limited, (previously known as Afon

Tinplate Company Limited at the time of the accident) of

pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and

Safety at Work Act 1974, was fined £29,000.00 and ordered to

pay costs of £1713.40.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lee Jones said: “This

injury was easily prevented, and the risk of injury should have

been identified. Employers should make sure they properly

assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the

risk from dangerous parts of machinery, especially during

maintenance and fault finding activities.”

Director and boiler-installation company fined after worker suffers serious burns Employee injured by machinery


May 2019

Buy this for

£135+vat and ...

get these too at

no extra cost.

• Fully IOSH approved

• No hidden costs

• Save time and

money studying

online

• No need to attend a

training centre or sit

in a classroom for 3

to 4 days

Fin

d o

ut

mo

re a

t: w

ww

.hsq

e.co

.uk

Special offer on IOSH Managing Safely

This newsletter is published

every month. You can get your

free copy by emailing us at

[email protected]

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/iosh-managing-safely/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/coshh/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/working-at-height/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/manual-handling/


May 2019

Sanders Plant and Waste Management Limited have been

fined after an employee was fatally injured when he was struck

by a reversing JCB loading shovel.

The Crown Court heard that, on 15th June 2015, a wheeled

front-loading shovel was being operated in the main waste

processing shed at the company’s waste recycling facility in

Morpeth. The vehicle, driven by another employee, was

loading waste into both a trommel (a large waste separation

and sifting machine) and a parked haulage vehicle. During the

course of this operation the vehicle struck a site operative, Mr

George Richardson. Mr Richardson was fatally injured and died

at the scene from his injuries.


found evidence of a lack of pedestrian and vehicle segregation

in the waste shed meaning that pedestrians and vehicles could

not circulate in a safe manner.

The company had carried out a risk assessment prior to the

incident that identified some control measures to reduce the

risks from operating the loading shovel and a Fork Lift Truck on

site. However, these control measures had not been fully

implemented nor were they sufficient to manage the risk of

collision between vehicles and pedestrians. There was also no

risk assessment or traffic management plan considering the

safe movement of vehicles across the site.

Sanders Plant and Waste Management Limited pleaded guilty

to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work

etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 with costs of £14,041.96.

A company that specialises in the design and manufacture of

aluminium access systems for the aviation industry has been

fined after an employee suffered serious injuries when using a

chop saw.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how on 21 October 2016, at

Aviramp Limited, Telford an employee was injured using a

chop saw.

The rotating blade of the chop saw came into contact with the

employee’s hand and it was severed.


found the company had failed to suitably and sufficiently

assess the risks from working on the chop saw, provide a safe

system of work, adequately maintain and guard the saw,

provide suitable information, instruction and training and

provide adequate supervision and monitoring.

Aviramp Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Company was

fined £50,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £5339.24.

Key lessons

• Assess the risks from work equipment

• Provide a safe system of work

• Adequately maintain and guard dangerous parts of work

equipment

• Provide suitable information, instruction and training

• Provide adequate supervision and monitoring

A Liverpool recycling company has been sentenced after one of

their employees, Paul Andrews, was fatally crushed by falling

plastic bales.

The Crown Court heard how, on 24 May 2017, waste plastic

bales had been delivered to Centriforce Products Limited’s site

in Liverpool and were stacked as free-standing columns in a

yard.

During the morning, a fork lift truck (FLT) driver noticed one of

the columns consisting of bales, stacked three high, had

partially collapsed obstructing his path. He subsequently used

the fork lift truck to straighten and stabilise the stack before

continuing on his way.

Some hours later Paul Andrews was working in the immediate

vicinity of the stack when it toppled, with the middle and top

bales, weighing over 500 kg, falling and crushing him. The

scene of the collapse was not discovered until nearly an hour

later when efforts to revive him failed.


found Centriforce Products Limited had failed to store waste

plastic bales securely in such a way as to prevent the risk of

collapse. The company had also failed to carry out a suitable

assessment which would have identified risks to the safety of

employees located within the danger zone of unstable stacks.

Centriforce Products Limited pleaded guilty to breaching

Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

and has been fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of

£10,540.95.

Waste management employee killed Worker crushed by falling bales Worker’s hand severed


May 2019

A window cleaning company has been sentenced for

safety breaches after a worker suffered bone

fractures following a fall through a fragile roof light.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 24 February

2016, three operatives were cleaning a 400-panel

solar array on the pig shed roof at Lingham Lane

Piggery, Dishforth.

The men had nearly finished the job when one of

them walked up the roof towards the apex. He was

not aware of the fragile roof light and walked on to it.

The roof light broke, and he fell more than seven

metres to the floor of the barn.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive

(HSE) found the company failed to ensure that the

risks from working at height had been minimised.

Premier Window Cleaners Ltd pleaded guilty to

breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work

etc Act 1974.

The company was fined £6000 and ordered to pay

£819 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Rachel Brittain

commented: “This incident could so easily have been

avoided by carrying out correct control measures and

safe working practices.

“If the work had been carried out from an elevated

work platform with harnesses and lanyards, falls from

height would have been mitigated.”

Glamping Cocoon Ltd and its director were both sentenced for

failing to comply with health and safety legislation after being

served with Improvement Notices.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 20 March 2017, the

company was subject to an unannounced inspection as part of

a targeted campaign of the woodworking sector. Four

Improvement Notices were served requiring various matters to

be rectified within a certain time. Following three extensions

to the improvement notices, two notices remained

outstanding months after the expiry date despite HSE attempts

to work with the company to support improvements. The

Improvement Notice relating to the assessment of risk to

employees from exposure to noise remains outstanding.

Glamping Cocoon Ltd was found guilty of breaching Section 33

(1) (g) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The

company was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £ 5506 in costs

The director was found guilty of breaching Section 33 (1) (g) by

Section 37 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He

was fined £ 2640 and ordered to pay £ 5506 in costs.

HSE inspector Louise Redgrove said: “Failure to engage with

HSE exposes both employees and the business to risk. In this

case health risks to employees from noise were not assessed

or managed and the business will have to pay a substantial

fine. The Company and director should have taken on board all

the assistance available to them from HSE or obtained

competent advice elsewhere. HSE will assist small companies

but where there is a disregard for the law, specifically the

requirements of Improvement Notices, prosecution will be

sought.”

Company fined after a worker is injured falling through a roof light Company and director fined


May 2019

A Lincolnshire construction company has been sentenced after

an employee received serious injuries from falling through a

fragile roof.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how on 2 May 2017 an employee

of Foundations and Buildings Ltd was constructing the roof of a

new agricultural building adjacent to an existing barn in Louth,

Lincolnshire. While doing so he stepped onto the fragile roof of

the adjacent barn, fell five metres onto the concrete floor and

broke his back.

An investigation by the

Health and Safety Executive

(HSE) into the incident

revealed that the system of

work in use to control risks

from work at height was

fundamentally unsuitable.

It relied on workers wearing

harnesses to control the risk

of falling when it would

have been more

appropriate to use edge

protection or nets. In

addition to this the

investigation determined

that although harnesses had

been provided, in reality

their use was not enforced

by the company.

Foundations and Buildings Limited pleaded guilty to breaching

Regulation 4 (1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and

has been fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4814.04

HSE inspector Roy Poulter speaking after the case said:

“Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe

methods of working and to provide the necessary information,

instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of

working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place

prior to the incident, the serious injuries sustained by the

employee could have been prevented.”

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has been fined

after refurbishment work undertaken in an accommodation

block at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital exposed Trust employees

and contractors to asbestos.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how in June 2012 Trust

employees were removing fixtures and fittings from the empty

flat when they disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs).

The Trust then failed to take adequate measures to deal with

the initial release of asbestos, exposing other contractors who

later worked in the flat.


found that the Trust did not properly record ACM on their

estate. The Trust had arrangements in place to manage

asbestos, however, the overall management plan for dealing

with asbestos was not recorded in a clear and concise manner

or effectively communicated to its employees and contractors

working on site.

The Trust had insufficient auditing procedures to ensure that

the arrangements contained in the policy and management

plan were fully implemented, working properly and effective.

The procedures in place upon the discovery of asbestos were

inadequate and the Trust failed to prevent re-entry into the

contaminated area by other workers.

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust pleaded guilty to

two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and

fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,385.80.

Employee falls through roof NHS trust fined for asbestos failings


May 2019

Approved online health & safety courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/fire-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/abrasive-wheels/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/asbestos-awareness-designers/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/coshh/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/fire-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/courses/


May 2019

Approved online health & safety courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/method-statements/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/vibration-awareness/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/working-at-height/


https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/silica-dust/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/manual-handling/


May 2019

Principal contractor, Weiser Construction Ltd and Complete

Cladding Systems Ltd, have both been sentenced for safety

breaches after a worker suffered life changing injuries.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 4 January 2016, Brian

Robinson was working as a sheeter cladder at the Weiser

Construction site at the John Cotton factory in Mirfield, West

Yorkshire. He was on a factory roof affixing sheet metal

cladding and capping to the gable end of an adjoining building.

Whilst tying the cappings to the roof, Mr Robinson fell through

a roof light 9.7m into the active factory area below. He

suffered an open fracture to his femur and multiple fractures

to his pelvis. Mr Robinson underwent operations to insert six

pins into his pelvis, two pins to the top and two pins to the

bottom of his femur.


found the original scaffold that had been constructed on the

roof had been removed prior to cladding works being

completed.

Spandeck boards with guardrails were the preferred control

measure but use of these boards meant that workers could not

affix the handrails in situ.

No nets had been scheduled to be used in the area of the

factory and as Mr Robinson fell, the top half of his legs struck

the top of a storage cage, approximately 2.4m high, before

continuing his fall to the floor behind the storage cage.

Weiser Construction Ltd (now in liquidation) pleaded guilty to

breaching Section 3 (1)

of the Health & Safety

at Work etc Act 1974

and was fined £145,000

with £5,046.30 costs.

Complete Cladding

Systems Ltd pleaded

guilty to breaching

Section 3 (1) of the

Health & Safety at

Work etc Act 1074 and

was fined £165,000

with £5,114.49 costs

After the hearing, HSE

inspector Paul

Thompson commented:

“Work at height, such

as roof work, is a high-

risk activity that

accounts for a high

proportion of

workplace serious

injuries and fatalities

each year.

“This was a wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of

the principal contractor to manage and monitor the works to

ensure the correct work equipment was being used. This risk

was further amplified by the cladding company’s failure to

ensure suitable measures were in place to prevent persons

falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”

Key lessons

• Risk assess all work at height

• Establish a safe system of work based on the risk

assessment

• Communicate the safe system of work to workers

Prosecution following worker’s fall from height


May 2019

A recycling company has been fined after a worker suffered

from a back injury after manually moving gantry steps.

The Crown Court heard how on, 10 September 2016, an

employee of Suez Recycling and Recovery Limited helped to

manually move steps weighing in excess of 950kg at a site in

Haslingden, after repair works had taken place. As a result of

this work, the employee sustained a back injury.


found manually moving and realigning steps was a regular

occurrence and that employees would use a scaffold pole

under the steps to move them back into position.

Senior staff knew how the steps were moved and that

employees had concerns, as it had been reported, yet no

suitable assessment had been carried out, or safe system of

work implemented, to avoid hazardous handling. No

equipment or handling aids had been considered to help

employees manoeuvre the gantry steps.

Suez Recycling and Recovery Limited pleaded guilty to

breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety and Work Act

1974 and was fined £144,000 and ordered to pay costs of

£32,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Sharon Butler said:

“Incorrect manual handling is one of the most common causes

of injury at work. Those in control of work have a

responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to

provide the necessary equipment, information, instruction and

training to their workers.

The land and property arm of the Greater London Authority

has been fined for serious failings in safety management after

an advertising hoarding collapsed onto a man in front of his

wife and two children. The Crown Court heard how on 25

January 2014 the man suffered facial and skull injuries.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that

GLA Land Property LTD (GLAP) employed a company to

manage and maintain this site. The investigation found that

GLAP failed to oversee the contract properly, resulting in the

wall not being maintained. The wall developed a crack which

weakened, causing the hoarding to act like a sail in strong

winds, eventually leading to its collapse.

GLA Land and Property Ltd of Broadway, London, pleaded

guilty under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc.

Act 1974 and was fined a total of £250,000 and ordered to pay

£ £14,653 in costs.

Recycling company fined for manual handling injury Wall collapses leads to fine


May 2019

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have published 12 case

studies to highlight the learning points from incidents that

have occurred during demolition and refurbishment.

Some of the incidents resulted in death or serious injury and

others could easily have led to single or multiple casualties. In

all cases, even where there were no casualties, additional

commercial costs often exceeded any potential saving resulting

from shortcuts.

The HSE are urging contractors, firms and individuals to take a

look at some of the scenarios below and ask themselves if they

could mitigate for these common lapses in judgement or

process, and if not, then to review their own processes with a

particular focus on thorough planning, management and

control of demolition and refurbishment work.

Case Study 1 Failure to provide sufficient pre-demolition

information by client: A contract to demolish high rise

residential blocks built of large precast panels used a ground

based high reach demolition machine. The client provided little

information on the building structure to the contractor.

Structural connection between panels had been poorly

designed, poorly built and had deteriorated further during the

life of the building. Lack of adequate information (and lack of

adequate survey or assessment prior to work starting) led to a

premature collapse of multiple floors across several bays

during demolition works. Fortunately, because the high reach

machine was large enough, as was the exclusion zone, there

were no injuries. However, the project was substantially

delayed while the incident was investigated, and remedial

action taken. This type of building often needs panel

connections to be stiffened and floors propped to a formal

design prior to demolition.

Case Study 2 Contractor competence. Basement extension

work poorly designed and executed: A community building

used daily by a local playgroup had a new basement dug out by

tunnelling underneath the building across the full perimeter.

Support was provided by a couple of Acrows and the sides of

the excavation were not shored up while underpinning was

carried out in stages. The contractor believed he was working

in solid rock but in reality, it was loose shale. Emergency works

to prop the cavern and save the building made further work

extremely difficult. This caused the contractor to go out of

business. All excavations and especially where they are

beneath or close to existing structures need to be meticulously

designed and carried out which allows the cost of temporary

works to be factored in and understood from an early stage.

Case Study 3 Contractor competence. Approved sequence not

followed causing collapse: The method statement for

construction of a rear extension called for a new strip concrete

foundation along the full length of the existing property to be

installed in 1 metre sections, to avoid undermining existing

foundations. The builder decided it would be quicker to dig the

full length of the trench in one go. The existing building

collapsed into the excavation injuring several workers. The

method statement should have been followed but other types

of foundation could have been considered – including short

bored piles or pads and a ground level ring beam.

Case Study 4 Failure to correctly assess existing structure:

Demolition workers assessed the form of construction of a

single storey, concrete slab roofed building on the hoof and

decided that because the soffit was flat and unjointed that the

roof must have been cast in-situ and would be reinforced in

both directions. They punched a hole in one wall for plant

access and were working inside when several of the precast,

reinforced concrete roof planks hinged down killing one of

them. The punched hole had removed its bearing. The soffit

was smooth because it had been plastered with grey gypsum

and the roof felting masked the upper surface. Simple further

checks and clues would have revealed the form of

construction. Cast in-situ slabs are not necessarily fully

reinforced in both directions and in some cases suspended

slabs are not reinforced at all. Simple equipment is available to

check for the presence and direction of steel reinforcement.

Safe intrusive methods of checking are also available – such as

core drilling or limited breakout – e.g. from a tower scaffold.

Where possible, machine demolition from the ground and an

exclusion zone is preferred and where this isn’t possible

designed back-propping could have reduced the risk of

wholesale failure.

Case Study 5 Temporary load on existing structure not

assessed: Demolition temporary works design considered

mobile plant loadings on suspended reinforced concrete floor

slabs but did not consider the rubble ramps that the contractor

intended to use to allow plant to track down onto each floor in

turn. The contractor didn’t realise the rubble ramp hadn’t been

assessed. The floor became overloaded and collapsed

progressively taking out floors below resulting in fatal and

major injuries. Had the task been fully assessed the need for

back-propping or floor to floor transfer by crane would have

been obvious.

Case studies - structural stability during demolition and significant refurbishment work


May 2019

Case Study 6 Failure to consider implications of removing

cross walls: A large building was being converted into flats.

Neither the designer nor the contractor considered the effect

of alterations to the existing structure. All internal walls and

floors were removed in one go leaving the brick shell and roof

in place. The internal cross walls and floor joists had been

providing support to the external walls which were now too

long to resist wind loading without movement. The building

collapsed while the site was closed and before new walls and

floors could be installed. The permanent works designer should

have considered the effect of necessary demolition work. In

some cases, designing a phased sequence of installing new

walls and floors before removing old ones can be used to

ensure stability is maintained. An alternative approach is

formal design and installation of extensive temporary works to

provide support.

Case Study 7 Support provided by non-loadbearing elements:

A contractor took out some window frames from a masonry

building that they thought were non-structural. But they were

providing sufficient fortuitous support to hold up a gable wall

which collapsed causing other parts of the building to collapse.

Several people were killed and injured. Older buildings may

need a designed structural scaffold or steel frame to hold them

up while structural refurbishment is carried out.

Case Study 8 Load bearing elements removed during soft

strip: Timber sheathing panels were removed during soft

stripping of a timber frame building. No one had checked or

realised that the plywood panels were bracing the timber

frame. Once they were removed the building was no longer

stable. The building collapsed onto workers. A survey would

have identified the form of construction and the lack of

separate bracing.

Case Study 9 Agreed sequence not followed causing scaffold

collapse: A large sheeted scaffold screen incorporating access

platforms was designed and erected to encase a building. The

sheeting prevented dust and debris falling into surrounding

public areas while the building was demolished floor by floor.

The scaffold was meant to be dismantled as each floor was

demolished. It was not. Wind caused a sail effect that

overloaded ties into the building. These failed and the scaffold

collapsed onto a road. Fortunately, the Fire Service had been

called to reports of the scaffold moving and had been able to

evacuate the area so there were no casualties. Demolition

work should have been halted at the right stage until the

scaffold contractor had attended to reduce the height of the

scaffold.

Case Study 10 Existing structure overloaded by removed

materials: A refurbishment contractor created openings in

internal walls to a prepared design but stored the bricks on a

suspended timber floor for reuse. The floor became

overloaded and collapsed injuring several workers. In some

instances, materials can be stored close to point of use in order

to minimise manual handling. In other situations, this can

overload the structure. A temporary works engineer would

have been able to advise on how much load the floor could

take and how to place load to minimise risk.

Case Study 11 Designer instructions not clear & contractor too

keen: A building contractor was engaged to construct an

extension to an occupied home. The architect specified that

foundations should be dug down to competent ground and

then agreed with local Building Control. The contractor tried to

excavate foundation trenches but could not find competent

ground, so he excavated an unsupported foundation pit with

the intention of using formwork to create the strip foundation.

When he reached 4m depth he found competent ground. His

efforts to prop and stabilise a cast iron 250mm diameter live

water main that he found at the edge of his excavation were

haphazard but fortunately the main did not fail – if it had the

existing building shallow foundations would have been washed

out, adding to risk of rapid collapse of the occupied building.

The water supplier discovered what was going on and the

excavation was concrete filled as emergency works. The

architect should have been mindful that the building was

occupied and given a clearer specification. A soil survey could

have been commissioned to check conditions which would

have suggested a range of alternative foundation options. Risk

to residents, delays and high cost could have been avoided.

Case Study 12 Unchecked change to system of work caused

collapse: A cinema was being demolished and the workers

decided to speed up the job by toppling long span roof trusses

to the ground instead of lifting them down as per the method

statement. This caused a section of concrete roof slab to move

and topple the upper masonry storey which in turn pushed the

perimeter scaffold away from the building, so it overturned

and fell across a high street. Vehicles and members of the

public were trapped beneath it. It stopped just short of a

supermarket plate glass window completely blocking the road.

By sheer luck no fatalities or major injuries resulted. The

planned and designed sequence of work must always be

followed unless changes are fully assessed and agreed by the

design team.


May 2019

A joinery company has been fined after two separate incidents

that led to workers’ fingers being amputated.

The Magistrates’ Court heard how employees of Flory Works

Ltd were injured in two separate incidents involving cutting

tools. One employee was injured while cutting timber on the

blade of an unstable sliding table saw in August 2017, and

suffered amputations to the middle and index fingers on his

right hand. A second incident occurred in September 2018,

where an apprentice joiner was feeding timber through a

Planer Thicknesser, and an insufficient guard caused the

planer’s blade to come into contact with the employee’s

finger, amputating it down to the first knuckle.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into

these incidents found that Flory Works Limited failed to ensure

effective measures were taken to prevent access to dangerous

parts of their machinery, and issued the company with three

Improvement Notices and a Prohibition Notice.

The company complied with the Prohibition Notice by making

the sliding table saw stable, but failed to comply with the

Improvement Notices within the given deadline. A further

extension to comply was granted, but again the company

failed to do so.

Flory Works Limited pleaded guilty to one breach of Section 2

(1), and three breaches of Section 33(1)G of the Health and

Safety at Work Act 1974, and a breach under Section 11(1) of

the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The company was fined a total of £10,600 and ordered to pay

costs of £2024.60.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Thomas Giles said “This

incident could easily have been prevented had the machinery

been properly maintained.

“Failings in health and safety management were reflected in

the general poor standards which were further compounded

by the company’s non-compliance with Improvement Notices

served by HSE.

“Awareness and management of health and safety, regardless

of the company size, is crucial to ensuring the safety of the

workforce.

“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take

appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below

the required standards.”

Detailed breakdown of fines:

• Breach under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work

Act: £5,000

• Three breaches under Section 33 (1) G of the Health and

Safety at Work Act: £200 (x3)

• Breach under Section 11(1) of the Provision and Use of

Work Equipment Regulations: £5,000

Company prosecuted after two workers suffer finger amputations


May 2019

All our safeguarding

courses have been audited

and approved by the CPD

Certification Service.

Find out more at:

www.hsqe.co.uk/courses/

Find

ou

t mo

re at: ww

w.h

sqe.co

.uk

Approved online safeguarding courses 'Broken' care system for most vulnerable—report says

Patients with mental health problems,

autism and learning disabilities are being let

down by a "broken" care system, a report

warns.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) says it

knows of at least 62 adults and children that

have been living in segregation in mental

health hospitals for long periods of time.

The report presents the CQC's initial

findings on the use of long-term segregation

on mental health wards for children and

young people and wards for people with a

learning disability or autism.

The CQC has so far visited and assessed the

care of 39 people in segregation - most had

a diagnosis of autism.

The 62 cases identified (after contacting 89

registered care providers) include 20 young

people, some as young as 11. Many of the

patients had been placed in hospitals miles

away from home.

Some had spent years in hospital, separated

from other patients and staff. The most

common reason given was to keep other

patients safe or a belief the patient would

be unable to cope around others.

The CQC found some of the wards were not

suitable environments for people with

autism and many staff lacked the necessary

training and skills to work with patients with

complex needs and challenging behaviour.

Some of the hospitals visited had "features

of institutions that are at risk of developing

a closed and even punitive culture".

In the case of 26 of the 39 people, staff had

stopped attempting to reintegrate them

back in to the main ward environment,

usually because of concerns about violence

and aggression.

Often, a suitable alternative place of care,

such as a community placement, could not

be found.

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children/


https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children/

https://www.hsqe.co.uk/course/safeguarding-children-advanced/


May 2019

Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than

predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and

Antarctica.

The long-held view has been that the world's seas would rise

by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100. A new study,

based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be

around double that figure. This could lead to the displacement

of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.

The question of sea-level rise was one of the most

controversial issues raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), when it published its fifth assessment

report in 2013. It said the continued warming of the planet,

without major reductions in emissions, would see global

waters rising by between 52cm and 98cm by 2100.

The IPCC report in 2013 only

considered what is "likely" to

happen, which in scientific

terms means they looked at

17-83% of the range of

possibilities. This new study

looks at a broader range of

results, covering 5-95% of the

estimates.

For expected temperature

rises up to 2C, Greenland's ice

sheet remains the single

biggest contributor to sea-

level rise. But, if

temperatures go beyond that,

the much larger Antarctic ice sheets start to come into play.

According to the authors, this scenario would have huge

implications for the planet. They calculate that the world

would lose an area of land equal to 1.79 million square

kilometres.

Much of the land losses would be in important food growing

areas such as the delta of the Nile. Large swathes of

Bangladesh would be very difficult for people to continue to

live in. Major global cities, including London, New York and

Shanghai would be under threat.

The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences.

Scientists have put together a map of the UK's wasp

population, showing the distribution of key species. The

researchers say wasps are a much maligned insect, which

deserve more attention. Rather than being "bothersome and

pointless", they are in fact beneficial insects, keeping other

pests in check.

2,000 people took part in the project in late summer 2017,

sending in more than 6,000 wasp samples for identification.

The German wasp (Vespula germanica) and the common

yellowjacket wasp (Vespula vulgaris) were the most common

species (both representing 44%). The European hornet (Vespa

crabro) made up 6%, while two rarer species were also found.

The research is published in the journal, Insect Conservation

and Diversity, which is available from:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17524598

Scientists say that global sea level rise could be bigger than expected Why we should appreciate wasps

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17524598


May 2019

Approved online food safety and hygiene courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk

When you handle

food and need

awareness of food

safety & hygiene at

level 2

Manufacturing

When you do not

handle food, but

you need an

awareness of food

safety & hygiene

When you need to

know about the

dangers from food

allergens & what

you should do

may 2019 new iosh construction safety courses for site ... · genuine course certificate issued by...

Documents