Take a look at this if you haven't already seen it, quite frankly I'm flabbergasted

http://www.shponline.co....r-hard-hat-on-site-visit

Agree with Bob, without the full facts it is bit tricky to comment in depth. The article says something along the lines of he said he would not go on the site if they dod not want him to; so I guess somebody from the principal contractor must have authorised it.

I would be interested to know whether it was a 'Hard Hat Site' stating that head protection MUST be worn, or whether certain activities were excempt, such as where there was no risk of anything falling on his head.

Taking the story on face value it appears the Council Leader was misinformed when he said: “I think people should have a choice whether they should wear them or not, and I was making my choice.” You don't have a choice, as it is a legal requirement under the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989, assuming he is not a turban wearing Sikh who are exempt.

The Principal Contractor should have advised accordingly and refused to let him on site without a hard hat. By doing so they and the Council Leader have breached the law. I wonder what the HSE have to say about this matter?

Maybe he had a written exemption certificate from the HSE... What gets me is that he is in a position where he should set a positive example, but failed to do so.

Not sure that is strictly true Ray:

Regulation 2 – Guidance: Head protection for people not undertaking construction work

These Regulations do not require head protection to be provided to people who are not undertaking construction work - for example, those delivering goods to a site or a prospective house purchaser visiting a housing development under construction. However, in order to comply with the general duties under section 3 of the HSWA, employers and the self-employed person engaged in construction work (including clients, designers, contractors, etc) should require visitors to wear suitable head protection if there is a foreseeable risk of head injury, other than the risk to those who may accidentally stumble or fall. Where necessary, a stock of helmets should be available for visitors to use when on site. It is often useful to have the visitors’ helmets a different colour from those of people who regularly work on the site. This could help to readily identify those unfamiliar with the operations and risks on the site.

Regulation 4 - Ensuring suitable head protection is worn
Every employer shall ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that each of his employees who is at work on operations or works to which these Regulations apply wears suitable head protection, unless there is no foreseeable risk of injury to his head other than by his falling.

The local rag article describes the Site Manager handing out h-viz vests and hard hats.
As per usual, no mention of safety footwear for the visitors. One hopes the construction work has stopped and that the route had been assessed for slips, trips, falling objects, sharp projections etc. etc.
There may well be a case here for there being no requirement for PPE at all.

I assist a couple of family run construction businesses and my take on things is that if there is no risk of something falling on the head then there is no need for head protection. For example, in the case of a visitor or roofer/tiler etc. I also advise that they review their signage that states PPE must be worn at ALL times, as there are times when it might not be necessary.

That being said, I always wear mine as a matter of course.

It was a £5 million leisure centre development though, not a small development, you would have to agree. I work on sites where PPE might seem excessive to the 'outsider' but, its there for a reason and it's just like putting a seat belt on in a car. Really. It might take a bit of getting used to admittedly, but it's there for a reason. A good reason too. The SME construction sector really does have a lot of catching up to do...

While I totally agree with the generality of the sentiments expressed i.e. that this person SHOULD have worn a hard hat and has set a rather poor example for others to follow; could I point out that the LEADER of a Council is NOT an employee, but an elected member and therefore not subject to S7 as one poster on the original article in SHP alluded to? Similarly, I believe that Council 'officials' are generally accepted as being employees, rather than elected members. It would be a brave EHO (who would not be a co-worker) to tackle the leader of the Council.

I love your comment about the pinstripe suit though :-)

Some confusion seems to have crept in. The council boss is described as the council's leader, i.e. its top politician/councillor, and not its chief executive, i.e. its top official/employee. Also, though chief executives and other very senior managers in councils have considerable authority and advise the senior councillors who make major decisions, the senior councillors tend to have ultimate authority and power. Therefore, the EHOs (environmental health officers) are far from being the council leader's co-workers as suggested by Stevie40. In addition to the difference in power and status, some council employees, including quite senior ones, nowadays are understandably fearful about their jobs/careers and may not wish to unduly rock the proverbial boat. This is a general comment and should not be construed as applying to the council involved in this case.

Other factors might include any previous less-than-positive attitude shown by the council leader to aspects of occupational safety & health (OS&H). As for how the principal contractor's people dealt with the situation at the time, they might have been influenced by fear, perceived or otherwise, that the firm might not win future contracts with the council. Anyhow, if there was a genuine need for helmets to be worn during the visit, all visitors, irrespective of status, etc., should have worn them.

It's also appropriate to add that some council leaders and chief executives do demonstrate a positive attitude to OS&H. For example, those of my employer routinely wear helmets when appropriate during visits to construction projects. They might even have their own helmets instead of having to borrow them. Also, both men liaise with my boss from time to time about critical OS&H matters - and, crucially, my boss can approach them when appropriate.

On a general note, judging from TV news and documentaries, various VIPs including members of the Royal Family, seem to have no problem with wearing helmets when appropriate. Even so, perhaps some people in the UK have a cultural/attitude issue about helmets and other types of personal protective equipment, i.e. such equipment is fine for workers, especially ones they perceive as being in menial positions, but is not appropriate for themselves. By contrast in the USA, for example, it seems that some or many people regard a helmet as a macho status symbol. Some US films and documentaries even portray people, usually blokes, wearing their helmets while shopping or driving. Can anyone with experience of the USA confirm or refute this impression?

Folks I think you all have this wrong!

The chap is quite within his right not to wear a hat.
However it is the Site manager who ought to have said "fine, no visit".
The site manager in my opinion broke the law and it is he who is the villian of the piece.

Totally agree

[expletive deleted] !! You could read worse in the Beano.

I wonder if he is a Sikh and wearing his turban?

(is that still the exemption?)

'I guess the PC quite likely suspended work liable to result in something falling on to Mr Carr's head. If so no breach by either though I think visit by HSE to see him would be interesting. Doesn't say a lot about his attitude to the safety of public, Council workers and supply chain.'

Peter, only just spotted your earlier post to me. Agreed, only if the PC did suspend the work and removed any risk of falling objects for the visit, then technically he would not be in breach. However, the smart money is on a breach of s3, CDM Regs and CHP Regs.

Watched this thtread with some interest, for a laugh really. The idiot who thinks taking a risk simply because it is his choice shows how idiotic and crude this man is. It often takes a very long time to get some employees to follow set down procedures and requirements involving safety and for some jumped up idiot to say it is his choice is not only arrogant but down right stupid. What about the people who have to attend to him if he has a serious accident, they may feel some sort of stress and over a period of time it can have a very advers effect upon them all because a numpty wanted to make his own decision. The company doing the work should now right formally to the council demanding that he be removed from his position and sent to the back benches for failing to support a safe working environment on council work sites. My response would fall foul of the guidlines because it would contain some rather not so nice comments, that should get you thinking a bit.

'How so - which bit of CHP Regs?'

Reg 2 sub-sections 13 and 18.

G'day.

http://books.hse.gov.uk/...alogueCode=9780717614783

Download free PDF provided.

Unfortunately, Steve, they missed the opportunity to show him wearing a clown's hat.