Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MEden380  
#1 Posted : 27 May 2016 15:19:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Scenario Flat roof 5 floors up, 76 photo electric panels installed, balustrade 650mm around roof edge, system requires annual maintenance / inspection. Best option 1. fit hand rail on inside of balustrade 1100mm (planners may object) 2. fit hand rail on inside of balustrade 950mm with sign-age indicating a hazard 3. fit a "man safe" fall prevention system opinions please
Alfasev  
#2 Posted : 27 May 2016 16:46:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev

The hierarchy of control say fixed guard rails, so it’s the 1100mm option. Only if planning is refused should you consider a man safe system. However the man safe systems may itself require annual inspections. I was just wondering why can’t you increase the height of the balustrade and what PV maintenance is required, I assume it is cleaning.
paul reynolds  
#3 Posted : 27 May 2016 16:54:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
paul reynolds

MEden Fixed guard rails with no exception, surely at 5 floors up is the difference between 650 and 1100mm going to be an issue with planning (i.e. won't be noticeable from ground level). I would like to see how planning could justify their decision based on the hierarchy of controls that should be used if an incident occurred and only the balustrade in place, or were the panels added at a later date....... Regards PaulR
paul.skyrme  
#4 Posted : 30 May 2016 21:56:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

MEden380 wrote:
Scenario Flat roof 5 floors up, 76 photo electric panels installed, balustrade 650mm around roof edge, system requires annual maintenance / inspection. Best option 1. fit hand rail on inside of balustrade 1100mm (planners may object) 2. fit hand rail on inside of balustrade 950mm with sign-age indicating a hazard 3. fit a "man safe" fall prevention system opinions please
Why is this suddenly required now? Surely this would have been identified during the design risk assessments etc. under CDM when this system was designed & installed. So, back to the designers and installers to find out why they did not comply with CDM, and unless they have a blinking good reason, then get them to fund whatever changes are required for compliance themselves. Surely this was written into your procurement contract? Or, did your purchasing people just buy the cheapest, as is normal with these muppets?
A Brown  
#5 Posted : 30 May 2016 22:32:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
A Brown

paul reynolds wrote:
MEden Fixed guard rails with no exception, surely at 5 floors up is the difference between 650 and 1100mm going to be an issue with planning (i.e. won't be noticeable from ground level). I would like to see how planning could justify their decision based on the hierarchy of controls that should be used if an incident occurred and only the balustrade in place, or were the panels added at a later date....... Regards PaulR
And in that discussion, remind planning that their decision places them in the role of designer under CDM..... I always liked that bit! Al
MEden380  
#6 Posted : 31 May 2016 08:26:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Thamks for the responses - just to let you know no system has yet been installed - the idea of a solar generation system is an after thought on an existing building under going extensive refurbishment
paul.skyrme  
#7 Posted : 31 May 2016 12:17:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Right, if it's not yet installed, then you have a chance to get it right! Your trump cards will be CDM, & WAH regs. Collective fall prevention over individual. Requirement to design in safe systems of access for maintenance. As has been suggested, if the planners object get them to sign such that they are overruling the requirements of CDM & WAH Regs.
SP900308  
#8 Posted : 31 May 2016 16:08:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SP900308

MEden380 wrote:
Scenario Flat roof 5 floors up, 76 photo electric panels installed
MEden, I suggest the confusion started here!
jontyjohnston  
#9 Posted : 31 May 2016 16:36:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jontyjohnston

MEden Had exactly this issue. New build panels & other equipment installed, designer installed anchor wire as solution. I picked this up when snagging underway. Arguments with designer and CDM-C that this solution was wrong, using Paul's points - collective, preventative, passive. Took a while but we eventually installed handrail around roof, aluminum, racked back to reduce visual issues (1 story building). Its a bespoke free standing solution not subject to planning. Job done. J
johnmurray  
#10 Posted : 01 June 2016 08:47:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Loads up 'round here. Only one featured use of scaffold etc. All the rest used ladders and sweat.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.