Just want peoples thoughts on this scenario, I'm aware we have responsibilities but not sure how far to take them...

A Company starts building a plant on unused land (on our site) away from our working area, the plant is not owned by us but would have eventually been part of our process.

Company goes bankrupt before completion, Asset Management Company steps in.

Asset Management company are now looking to remove the installed assets (vessels, containers etc) via crane, HIABs and trailers. Some WAH required for detaching tanktop walkways etc.

Would it be sufficient given the circumstances that our company have little involvement over any of this, for me to issue a permit signing control for that area of site over to the asset company on the premise that they will control all vehicles and work in that area?
Or is that just a meaningless exercise and we as site owner still have overall responsibility for work carried out on site regardless?

Bit of a grey area for me with this...

Thanks in advance
Alan

Your site - your responsibility!

I would not advance any notion of issuing permits at this delicate stage.

Make the asset company deliver up their papers, i.e RAMS, Training Records,Insurance, Competence checks etc.

Hang tough!

Jon

Thanks guys, polarised opinions here!

the work is scheduled over 2-3 days - no more so not CDM. It is literally undoing frilly bits from the vessels and uplifting them onto trailers then out the door, same for the containers. The main areas of work here are guys unbolting bits and pieces and a crane doing the lifting.

Bit more info - Access is via an access gate not used by staff to an area of site where no staff work nor have any business being there, so all work is completely segregated from employees or other site visitors, from that perspective my people are completely protected.

I can see this from the perspectives already expressed, which is why I raise the question :)

It is grey and you are right to consider your responsibilities. As it is a standalone site on your land they would have primary responsibility however there are overlapping and entangled duties.

The difficulty is if they do something unsafe that affects your employees, visitors, plant, working area etc. If this unsafe act happened because there was a lack of coordination between the two parties you could be held to account.

So I would not just sign control over and forget about them. I would ask for a copy of their RAMS and schedule. Have a coordination meeting on their site (which you have to minute) so that you can have a quick look at what they are up to. You also need to brief your employees and ensure they know once they are on your site they operate under your rules.

Alan

Some good advice here plus some polarised views as you might expect with a tricky question. Personally, I think you would be right to review the contractor's documentation prior to them working on site.

You may wish to consider, depending on the ancillary risks, providing a degree of supervision, site induction, boundary limits and a permit to work on your premises in order to ensure some moderate control over the work and contractors.

You imply it's not CDM, I think you mean not 'notifiable' under the current CDM.

Ray