Hi Karoloydi
I think there is a risk that one can interpret the BS on Temporary Works to have a scope much wider than that which its authors had in mind.
Let’s start by assuming that this is in relation to any construction project and so CDM applies.
In the interpretation CDM defines a “structure”:
“structure” means—
- any building etc etc etc etc,;
- any structure similar to anything specified in paragraph (a);
- any formwork, falsework, scaffold or other structure designed or used to provide support or means of access during construction work, and any reference to a structure includes part of a structure
From this you could conclude that a stepladder is a “structure” of a nature such that you might consider that the scope of the BS on Temporary Works extends to a stepladder.
However, the rationale for the BS was that many a temporary structure had been collapsing causing harm either due to the collapse of the structure itself and/or what it was there to provide temporary support to.
So, the BS then calls for a process that includes for Permits to
- Load
- Unload
HSE talks about “Temporary Works” being “engineered” solutions.
HSE also published a Guidance Note GS15 decades ago which advised on precautions for “General Access Scaffolds”. This was heavily caveated to say that more thinking was needed if there were reasons why a scaffold would need to be “designed”, perhaps to work out what additional bracing etc would be needed for e.g. accommodating a lifting hoist that would be incorporated into a scaffold.
Without specifically mentioning “Temporary Works” let alone the BS on these CDM continues with comment about structural stability in Part 4 added to CDM in 2007 mostly as a consolidation of what had previously been in the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 (which were a consolidation of parts of the Construction Regulations 1961 and 1966):
So Regulation 19 says:
- All practicable steps must be taken, where necessary to prevent danger to any person, to ensure that any new or existing structure does not collapse if, due to the carrying out of construction work, it—
- may become unstable; or
- is in a temporary state of weakness or instability.
- Any buttress, temporary support or temporary structure must—
- be of such design and installed and maintained so as to withstand any foreseeable loads which may be imposed on it;
- and only be used for the purposes for which it was designed, and installed and is maintained.
- A structure must not be so loaded as to render it unsafe to any person.
Note that the duty under Reg 19(1) is to do what is “practicable” rather than what is e.g. “reasonably practicable”. Regs 19(2) and 19(3) don’t even have the qualification of “practicable”, so in effect set so called “strict liability” duties.
To some extent these legal niceties DO support the argument that more “structures” should be considered to be Temporary Works than might usually be the norm.
Nevertheless Regulation 19 does NOT specify how compliance will be achieved.
If a “structure” is a “General Access Scaffold”, lightweight tower scaffold, or stepladder which does NOT need any specialist competence (other than that of an e.g. ticketed scaffolder, PASMA trained tower erector/dismantler, or experienced ladder user) what would be the benefit of adding all these means of access but not complex loading on to the Temporary Works Register?
If the information that comes with a tower scaffold says that its maximum load is say 750kg and someone chooses to put 1.5 tonnes on it and it collapses, then clearly it is going to be very difficult to defend a prosecution taken under Regulation 19!
However, would a Permit to Load that says “No more than 750kg to be applied” make any difference to what happens on site – once that Permit has been signed off?
Would the e.g. painter need a new Permit to Load every time they move a tower from location A to nearby location B? If so will they be LESS likely (when appropriate) to bother to take down the top half of the scaffold before rolling it from A to B?
Some supervision will be required to check that the painter plays by the rules and equally that the brickies don’t decide to use the tower for their work involving much heavier loading!
I think there is a danger that like demanding Permits to Work for this, that and everything, if too many access “structures” (perhaps with an element of relatively light loading) are deemed to be within the scope of a Temporary Works Register the result could be that TW management becomes a tick box exercise, rather than something where people think VERY carefully about the Temporary Works that pose potentially catastrophic risks.
……and imagine the Contractor who might have waited until the Work at Height Regulations 2005, complete with a requirement to apply the “General Principles of Prevention” before looking closely at why painters had been routinely defaulting to using stepladders (and other ladders) when often inherently safer means of access such as the humble lightweight tower were reasonably practicable.
If you were to include the towers (but not the ladders) in your Temporary Works Register, would the likely outcome be that the painters will revert to their old ways AND that their supervisors will turn a blind eye as that TW Register is just so much hassle?!?!