It Might not be H&S law. it might be a planning requirement. ask them to tell you what law they have been advised under

the link comes back as page does not exist.

In this particular case, if your description is accurate, and the plant is adequate (long enough reach, etc) then I possibly agree. However, part of the purpose of the survey is to validate the 'ifs'.

BS6187 'Code of practice for full and partial demolition' says various things that imply you'll always need surveys:

"5.1.2 Effective site knowledge (see Clauses 7 and 8)
"An assessment and survey of the site should be planned to identify the following, as far as possible."

This clause then talks about things like services, form of the structure etc., so you'd argue you've already done that.

"5.2.5 Avoidance of unplanned collapse: surveys

"Inspection surveys and assessments should be undertaken before work is carried out. The chosen methods of work should be such that demolition activities can be carried out in such a way that the unplanned collapse of any part is avoided by maintaining the structural stability of the remaining parts at all times. The methods of work should therefore emphasise the importance of planning surveys, including those of the structure, being undertaken before any work is carried out. The types of surveys required should be explicit and the reasons given if they relate, for example, to features which might not be immediately apparent. Such surveys may be intrusive to ensure an adequate survey of the structure is undertaken. The surveys should permit structural assessments to form a fundamental basis for maintaining adequate structural stability at all times, so the terminology and requirements should be clear to avoid any misunderstandings.

"CAUTION: The term "structural survey" can cause confusion as its meaning can differ, for example, when the term is used by estate agents where the survey is for different purposes, such as valuation."

This clause makes it quite hard to argue against a specific structural survey. However, chapter 7 (a whole chapter about 'knowledge of the site' - mostly surveys) does include the possibility that a structural survey could be a desktop study. I'd expect that to only apply when the structure has good reliable records, however.


Overall, I'd take teh view that if all that you say really is known, then the functional survey requirements have been satisfied. However, if you merely think it is true, then possibly the requirements are not satisfied. For example, do you know that you haven't got prestressed floor planks? Do you actually know that it's completely conventional construction, or are you just assuming that it is because it looks like it is?

The structural survey need not be a major undertaking - it's another of these things where it needs to be proportionate. If teh structure is as simple as reported, the proportionate survey need not be vastly costly or time-consuming.

Is it not reasonable for the demolition expert to assert that based on the known construction method and materials and (most importantly) on the basis of his proposed method for take-down, that a structural survey would be wholly superfluous?

This is a traditional 2-storey house - hardly a complex job!

Ron is right it is not a complex job and the Client has employed competent consultants and contractors. We do have knowledge of the structure, it age, that it was extended, it highly likely to have solid as well as cavity walls, cut roof, timber floor etc. However most of this is not documented and perhaps this is the issue?
I do not believe the demolition contractor needs a structural survey to pull down this house. They have already prepared their demolition plan. I believe they are asking for it because they believe it is a compliance issue.

Do you need a structural survey that only states the obvious and what the competent demolition contractor also knows? One of the issues I have with structural surveys is that they can be full of caveats and do not tell us anything we do not already know. I am not criticising surveyors but rarely can you rip a building like this apart to fully survey it and if we set about closing all the caveats the survey costs would have been enormous.

I did read BS6187 and I know the HSE will refer to it but it is not an ACOP. Surely it has to be a risk based approach? The risk of coming across something to do with the structure that poses an additional significant risk that could have been spotted in a structural survey is low. I cannot think of anything.

Risk assessments are good for foreseeable risks, foreseeable events and foreseeable behaviour.

We do risk assessments and get competent persons to carry out surveys as part of the written record of a plan of work, and in the event of an accident or incident we can show that we did consider the foreseeable.