Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe
Under the terms of our lease we need to clean our building on a three yearly cycle, but the most recent (high profile) contractors carried out a risk assessment and refused to let their employees onto our roof. The reason being that suitable anchor points are not provided. As a safety professional I agreed with their findings and it took the burden off us temporarily.

We now need to repair the skylights as they are leaking rainwater. Can anyone recommend the next course of action?

I feel that we may need a specialist roofing contractor to look at problem. Recommedations (via email) are welcome.

Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe
My details are now updated.

Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe
Yes, that is a good point.

I just thought that if we provided anchor points we would be making the contractors life easier by providing permanent fixing points, as opposed to temporary means. Although I do agree that it may be somewhat of a last resort in the working at height risk control hierarchy.

We probably need to find a suitable competent contractor, any information here would be most welcome.

Thanks

Posted By Lyndon Sutcliffe
Thanks for the good advice.

We do share premises with another company that are not on the same wavelength safety-wise.

We are responsible for the cleaning of the roof and the guttering , but our overseas based landlord is responsible for the maintenance aspects.

Being tennants we want to take control of both these issues from a safety point of view and we are not prepared to just let anyone go onto the roof. I saw getting the landlord to contribute to anchor points as the way forward, but from the posts here, I now feel that we should source a competent contractor from the outset as the need for roof access will be infrequent.

Posted By CFT
Bob

I agree; no formal requirements exist per se but you could include it never-the-less whilst interpreting current legislative requirements; agree again, why bother with them unless there is a maintenance requirement, which in many cases these days (M&E plant etc) is required.

Of course the presence of said protective equipment encourages use, that is why it is in place for the infrequent protection of trained personal and if I may quote you Bob? 'It is down to the trust and control of said contractor' that ensures they are used as they were designed to be.

If regular access is required then barrier it as you suggest, although in some instances local planning laws prevent installation as does the design, (not going down CDM 2007 designer duties either).

Yes, mansafe can be a problem, however with properly trained contractors and someone who understands what restraint and arrest are all about in terms of inspection prior to access, I don't see a problem; (although many rescue plans leave a lot to be desired) yes indeed, wear a SA lanyard on a restraint system and you have serious problem, as do you the other way round because of its use (or lack of) the temptation is to remove it and work without one, again I say with strictly controlled trained personnel it simply is not going to be a problem and whilst I can see it can be a problem I see little evidence to suggest that it really is an issue that requires outside intervention at this given time.

Three considerations then;

1. Type of building (what is suitable for protection, can you actually get a barriered system in place? Are there planning restrictions.

2. Frequency of access required? Testing under LOLER as you mentioned earlier.

3. Someone has to be ultimately responsible whilst the operatives are on the roof and be capable of comprehending and understanding what exactly is required of the operatives and their equipment. (yep, have a barrier and you to a large degree eliminate that burden of control to a far simpler level)

In an ideal world one would barrier every single roof in existence and restrict access to internal thus eliminating forever any chance of falling; I am not arguing here for the sake of it but access can be achieved for infrequent work without a barrier, and be conducted in a completely safe manner.

Lyndon

Hopefully some of this debate will have been beneficial to you?

CFT

Posted By CFT
Lyndon

Quote; "I saw getting the landlord to contribute to anchor points as the way forward, but from the posts here, I now feel that we should source a competent contractor from the outset as the need for roof access will be infrequent."

Whoever and however access is granted to, will need to be extremely competent, this can still be achieved with a 'man safe' system. If you do want to go down the barrier route check with the local planning office to ensure there is no restriction. If indeed you do barrier it, then you will need a full SSOW to cover installation.

Good luck and all the best.

CFT

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Lyndon/CFT

I think our hymn sheets are fairly closely aligned. I have an inbuilt caution concerning mansafe etc because I think it gives designers and planners a cop out of the responsibility for design.

Planners particularly as CFT points out are among the awkward squad and i feel the HSE do need to grasp this nettle. I have seen permission refused for guard rails set 3m back from the edge and invisible from the ground or any save the high rise block 1/2 mile away. Rejected on aesthetic grounds. Planners need to understand that in making this decision they are making a critical design choice. Remember specification is part of a designers role under CDM07. It all starts at the belief that mansafe is an acceptable substitute for guardrails.

Bob

Posted By pat merchant
Lyndon
mmmm roof access its a major problem for most people never mind those that share a roof area.
The problem is that even if the persons are not invited onto your roof in other words lets say you have left a ladder handy to climb up,you can and I have seen occupiers procecuted for accidents that have happened.
At the end of the day, you have a duty of care to check their Risk Asessments,Rescue plans etc to ensure that they will not have an accident. Whether it be temporary or permanent access the risk is the same, it only takes 1 second to fall and be killed.
We have decided to control this risk and purchase several portable anchor points and skylight covers made to fit our site. this is controlled with Permits,Rescue plans and Risk Assessments. This is ok for us but maybe with shared occupancy you will not get the support from the other people to the safety aspects involved so maybe you should look for a contractor that deals with these issues themselves.
Lots of companies will offer visits, advice free of charge and collective protection is the best but sometimes out of reach in cost, remember the term reasonably Practicable means:
The term reasonably practicable allows for a cost benefit analysis to be used when determining the actions to be taken in response to an identified risk, or for a comparison to be carried out with “good practice” in similar circumstances. The preventative measures taken should however be commensurate with the magnitude of the risk.
if interested in any kit and contacts give me a shout it will not necessarily cost you the earth
Pat

Posted By CFT
Thank you Bob, I'd appreciate any future 'heads up ' you get.

Charley

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Totally agree with you Brett and perhaps it needs to raised with the local PI directly. If the lead designer sees this as the right choice why should planners then decide to force a re-specification to a lower standard of protection ie a mansafe. By refusing to accept anything but mansafe they are de facto specifying

Bob