Unless barriers are placed to prevent access, one can access the top using the transoms, ledgers and standards despite ladders are removed.

Removing ladders to the first lift isn't always sufficient - particularly in the circumstance you describe. In the event of incident then yes, the commissioning Client can be taken to task for failing to set and maintain adequate standard of public protection- particularly so where this is 'common area'. Use of HERAS close-mesh fence at the base when unattended is a simple option.

It does seem odd that the scaffold isn't accessible however, the Work at Height requirement for inspection is within the previous seven days prior to use, therefore if they aren't being used for weeks/months there is no need to inspect EVERY 7 days. Just make sure they are inspected prior to use and every 7 days while use is ongoing. If "they" will not remove the scaffold while it is not being used then make sure access to it is prevented. Look on todays IOSH homepage, "Boy injured on Building Site"

Would it not be possible to use a MEWP to inspect the roof then erect a scaffold when required? Somebody somewhere must be paying a fortune for the scaffolding to be left in place for months on end.

So, just to clarify Does everyone agree that during the priod of time where the scaffolds are not in use they do not require inspection? Or do people think we should still be inspecting these during the period of time in between? I have checked the regs out and have my own opinion but, as so many times before, would be happy to be wrong if it helps getting the job done right in the end.

Yes it's possible although I don't think you'd get any footage that would tell you much other than recognising that it's a roof. You may also struggle to get authority to fly it in such a built up area. You're also likely to end up with a trailer load of grief for flying CCTV in domestic area. Such devices are avialable from certain electronic gadget retailers that sound like they were in 'Hi-de-Hi' but I wouldn't recommend trying to use one of those outdoors.

This issue is could be looked at referencing various regulations, Reg 12-WAH, Schedule 3-WAH, Reg 6-PUWER, Regs 26 & 27 CDM etc. Perhaps Mr. Loftsedt should have addressed these overlaps to provide more clarity bearing in mind falls from height is responsible for numerous deaths every year. I can only suggest you highlight the above provisions and put them under the noses of the powers that be. If they are insistent that the scaffold will not be removed then maybe Schedule 3 of the Work at Height Regs could be the way forward, and the most practical: " While a scaffold is not available for use, including during assembly, dismantling or alteration, it shall be marked with general warning signs in accordance with the Health & Safety (Signs & Signals) Regs and be suitably delineated by physical means preventing access to the danger zone" I have used this in the broadest possible sense, suggesting that the scaffold is not available for use because it has not been inspected. Also bear in mind Rons point re deterioration, heavy winds would could cause instability so an inspection would be prudent then even when the scaffold is not being used.

Well you have the risk of kids / drunks etc climbing and then falling on scaffold. That seems to have been covered. What about the potential for total collapse of the scaffold? Are there any vehicle movements in these areas? Have tenants ever been known to lean items against the scaffold or hang things from them? High winds leading to collapse? MEWP would certainly seem to be the route to go down if a detailed, close up inspection is needed.