Rank: Forum user 
|
Our Facilities Manager is instructing a roofing company to come to site for gutter clearing. The roofers are putting scaffolding up at one of the building to access all 3 valley gutters. I have pointed out that, although this provides adequate access it doesn't answer the question of edge protection. They are telling me they will demarcate 2m from the edge and instruct their roofers not to go beyond that area.
Do my colleagues think this is a suitable control given the risks?
I have my views, just wondering what others think.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm no expert on roof work but in a word "No". You've not mentioned the material from which the roof is constructed? Is it fragile and if so how is access to the roof to be controlled/eliminated? Will worker simply be told not to walk on/across the roof panels? Perhaps your FM should be pointed towards the cases of Tullis Russell and the more recent prosecution of a builders merchant in Blackburn following work on a roof that resulted in a fall from height. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...lders-merchant-fined.htmPhil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
On the information provided, demarcating safe areas is “allowed”. Please refer to “Working on roofs” pg 12 http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg284.pdf“Full edge protection may not be necessary if limited work on a larger roof involves nobody going any closer than 2 m to an open edge. In such cases demarcated areas can be set up, outside which nobody goes during the work or access to it. Demarcated areas should be: • limited to areas from which nobody can fall; • indicated by a continuous physical barrier (full edge protection is not necessary but a painted line or bunting is not sufficient); and • subject to tight supervision to make sure that nobody strays outside them (demarcation areas are unacceptable if this standard is not achieved).” The "safe area" has to be managed. Also if roof is of fragile construction or has fragile rooflights or other risks of falling then additional protection would be required. Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
No! and there is far more easier ways to address this and lowering risk/cost/efficiency. Would rather instruct a company to use MEWPS on van. If there is multiple properties that will require maintenance on a pre-planned program then it is far more cost effective. Costs something like £250 per day for a driver and van. Or invest in staff for adequate training and equipment of this type. Or just a standard MEWPS/self propelled boom, whatever for your particular scenario.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
jarsmith83 wrote:No! and there is far more easier ways to address this and lowering risk/cost/efficiency. Would rather instruct a company to use MEWPS on van. If there is multiple properties that will require maintenance on a pre-planned program then it is far more cost effective. Costs something like £250 per day for a driver and van. Or invest in staff for adequate training and equipment of this type. Or just a standard MEWPS/self propelled boom, whatever for your particular scenario.
Good luck! Unfortunately, a MEWP is not suitable. The gulleys are 80 metres long. MEWP training also advises against exiting the man-basket for obvious reasons. I won in the end. Scaffolding has been erected at the ends of the open gulleys.........a small victory. Thanks to all who contributed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.