This story hit my email from IOSH Connect yesterday, and interests me as the architect was prosecuted under Regs 13 and 14 of CDM. Does anyone have further info, does it suggest that the architect should design in the WAH safety as well as the design and ssow for the works? http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...?i=N0091951280744384174A

There's a good article in the "other institute's" health and safety at work magazine, along with a cracking photograph. I don't know many details but looking by the photo its surprising no-one picked this up, and unsurprising the building designers have been found liable. There's an access ladder less than a metre next to an exposed edge with a lip of about 12 inches. It seems completely forseeable that someone could step down the ladder, and step / trip backwards, which would result in a 9 metre fall (my asumption on viewing the photograph only). Alledgedly, the risk was created by the architects changing the design of the build (originally there wasn't going to be an air-con unit positioned there so there wouldn't have been an access ladder). Sounds familiar doesn't it? How often do plans get changed without the safety implications of these changes being assessed and realised? Interestingly the article also states that the architects were rushing to complete the project and this was the reason given for not re-assessing the risks fully after changing the design. Again, a common story in workplaces, and a lesson to be learnt by all. Regards, Ian

I need to type faster! The "other" magazine's article is pretty much the same content as the link posted by Jane, and the photograph used is the same. Ian

As an aside - if there was to be no aircon on the roof the roof structure would have been re- assessed for the new load so it is strange that the process was incomplete - Lack of competent advice?? Yet again we see also parapets designed only for decoration when they could so easily and cheaply be made functional in the original design. Bob

Reading through the article on the HSE site I note a mention of the term "planning supervisor" more than once as it is regarding the 1994 Regs.? I assume the same level of prosecution would be used for a similar offence under the current Regs. ?

This prosecution was under CDM 1994 as the offence took place before the 2007 regs. Google the 1994 regs and you will find a copy of the regs. Had me confused for a start until I realised the date

Hi all, Just to let you know that your own Institution's magazine - SHP - also has the story, of course, and with a lot more detail than the HSE release, with quotes given directly to us by the inspector involved - visit: http://www.shponline.co....h-at-error-in-fatal-fall