Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Steve Langston
Has anybody got any views?
As a local authority we regularly place planning conditions on construction works. We have been advised that any planning conditions imposed may mean the authority becomes a "designer" under CDM Regs. For example the use of wooden fascias/windows instead of UPVC in a conservation area. Due to the regular maintenance required of wooden fascias, soffits, windows etc and the risk of falls from heights of maintenance staff/ member of the public(end user) we have been advised we may be liable for any accidents arising from this poor design specification.
Any similar issues anyware? Is it correct that H+S legislation falls heigher than the contrdicting approach of the Town and Country Planning Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sam Rawcliffe
Steve
Firstly, it is pleasing to see that somewhere designers are being made to unserstand the foreseeable consequences of their designs under the CDM Regs.
However, as I understand it, a conservation area is an area which the Council considers to be of special architectural or historical interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Local Authorities therefore, can apply rules that new buildings are designated to be in sympathy with the established character of the area. The choice of materials and the detailed design of building features are vital elements in ensuring that new development is appropriate to a conservation area and planning permission could be refused on these grounds.
I would therfore try and work with the council to achieve a compromise using your arguement of CDM regs and perhaps they'll allow you to use 'wood-effect' UPVC. Speak to suppliers they may be able to help.
Regards
Sam Rawcliffe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Rae
Steve
Interesting one this!
I can see where your informant is coming from. My experience with HSE is that they are primarily concerned with the prevention of injuries at work and not the preservation of our heritage or conservation site appearance. A prosecution could therefore, be forthcoming if someone were injuried as a consequence of the council's insistence on a particular design/type of window frame. I cannot see HSE differentiating between this scenario and a similar situation on an industrial site(but that's my personal opinion). Bear in mind also, that any breaches of H&S legislation are dealt with under criminal law.
Hope this helps
DR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
My understanding is that local autorities when setting planning conditions (in compliance with planning regulations) are not considered to be "designers" under the CDM regulations. Therefore would not have duties under CDM.
I recall that this is specifically mentioned in the CDM Approved Code of Practice, but don't have access to my copy at the moment to quote chapter and verse.
Your LA safety adviser may be able to help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Maurice Palmer
I do not agree that Planners are exempt from being classeed as Designers when they stipulate a particular type of material that must be used in a construction. Granted Paragraph 111 of the ACoP says they are exempt when providing ADVICE. However Paragraph 110 states that designers include ANYONE who SPECIFIES or ALTERS a design, or who specifies the use of a particular method of work or material, this must include a Planner who stipulates a material that will need greater maintenance and therefore increase the risk to the maintenance workers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
I support the view that such detailed stipulations do constititute an influencing of design, and therefore the role of Designer may be applied.It may be some consolation to consider that the issue may be merely one of maintenance and cleaning frequency? Even pvc soffits and any window will need maintaining and cleaning at some stage, and there will be an overarching duty on the Project Lead Designer to consider safe access anyway?
Thought I'd throw in another issue which Planners might want to chew on:
An HSE Inspector has raised concerns with us (a Scottish LA) that Planners have placed conditions on developers of new housing developments requiring them to alter the traffic routes to / the size of their site compounds etc as houses are let or sold, which has led to the developer having difficulty in complying with the Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations. A bit of a 'two-way street' I know, but there may be developers out there who would suggest that the Planning Authority had caused them to be in breach, and might 'invite' them to be part of any proceedings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I believe that they have a duty with regard to the consequences of what they actually require to be done. It's good to hear that the CDM message it 'getting home' to Planners and Architects and it is being discovered that CDM isn't just about safety in construction but designing for safety in future use, cleaning and maintenance. Perhaps we will begin to see an end to low parapets, ranch-style edge protection, windows that cannot be cleaned from within the building, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Steven,
Looking at your email address, methinks that some local HSE Inspector is trying to do a one man band "safety in design" initiative as one of our clients within your local HSE office's patch has been targeted on the issue of specification of fascias.
Our advice to them was that wood might be specificied for all the right reasons, eg life cycle H&S and environmental risks.
If wood with relatively low toxicity paint etc, then using renewable materials which will largely biodegrade. No need for polymerisation process and hence exposure of manufacturing personnel to carcinogenic vinyl chloride monomer, wood better at dealing with UV radiation than uPVC, so the maintenance argument not wholly convincing, + landfill considerations etc etc.
Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward H
Planning Authorities are not designers, they are merely specifying local rules/standards that a design should comply with to be acceptable. In the same way that Building Regs [or Workplace regs]specify other rules/standards that a development must comply with.
If the designer cannot comply with a planning condition and meet their duties under CDM then ultimately it may not be legally possible to build that building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Ward
As to the question of whether or not Planning Authorities are designers under the CDM Regs, the new CDM ACoP states that designers include.."anyone who specifies or alters a design, or who specifies the use of a particular method of work or material, eg a quantity surveyor who insists on a specific material or a client who stipulates a particular layout.." but it goes on to say (paragraph 111).."Local authority or government officials may provide advice relating to designs and relevant statutory requirements, eg building regulations, but this does not make them designers."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Ward
Sorry for the duplication - Didn't read the rest of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
That refers to advice, Simon. If the Planners say that you must use a certain material and not another or that you may not have a parapet more than a certain height that is more than advice and unless they are quoting from legislation, an approved document or the like they must be responsible for the effects of that decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Battye
Sorry I,m late in on this one
I work in Building Regulatuions and my LA has trouble with land stability issues. No problem there, but remember, smaller developers and householders dont understand the implications of the planning conditions that are being issued to them and this often gives a headache to people like ourselves (Building Control Surveyors)who can see better, convenient and safer solutions. For example they frequently ask that a small building should be built on a "reinforced concrete raft", when other methods would be better.
We try to encourage our planning department to issue more generally worded conditions based on performance standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.