So long as all the hazards have been identified then there is no need to duplicate. However, it may be easy to overlook some elements that are not "departmental" such as structural issues (eg condition of premises), electricity, stairs, common area lighting, heating/air con service, security, traffic management.

Have experience of this kind of situation / challenge. Avoid the term 'risk assessment', although as short-cut jargon, I get it. If you have lots of buildings, there will be variation between them, and whilst managing by regulation (asbestos, electricals etc) seems like a good idea, there will be massive differences between premises. For example, a 10 storey block with 3 lifts, built in 2010 will have no asbestos, but there are lifts, other height issues (maybe roof cradles) and could well have aircon, basement etc. Another building could be pre-2000, (asbestos maybe) single storey, with fire shutters for a kitchen area. Etc. A 'file' (almost a data sheet!) for each building can then form the basis for ongoing management (by FM, not you). Properly focussed on the particular hazards (features) in or around each premise. Probably management by checklist works best for this. And of course fire risk assessment is by building, so no conflict there. Important - don't forget the surrounding fences, walls, gates, and other structures (flagpoles, fountains, paths, lighting pylons). It's not about assessing, just logging and then managing the upkeep and repair of physical objects. Yes, building asset plans should be able to encompass this, but often don't do it thoroughly. It's a recommendation I have made in the past, because 'by regulation' just wasn't working effectively. Cut-backs meant that 'condition surveys' were not done, so the structures themselves were not looked after. Engineers were 'let go' because the maintenance demands of lifts, hoists, cradles etc were unquantified. Discuss with your FM service as to how this is done now, maybe you're not far off this anyway.

an asbestos survey, legionella audit, building asset management plan is not/are not risk assessments in the true/primary form and the same goes for other subjects --- I have had 100's of asbestos surveys, legionella audits, building asset management plans and fire related inspections etc. saying that the risk [if risk was noted at all] was low when in fact it was high risk and vv and similar for other subjects And the relevant regulations re risk assessment are the management regulations My thoughts are that all the other things e.g. surveys, audits, building asset management plans etc. are good tools / information packs etc. that are used along with other areas to enable a suitable and sufficient risk assessment / or a set of suitable and sufficient risk assessments to be undertaken You find experts in asbestos know nothing about legionella and so on and so on ---- and that's where the professional H&S person comes in as they should have a very good understanding of all areas and can join things together where the stand alone experts cannot and in all the years I have worked with facility management [~40! -inclusive of being a director of my own FM company] I have yet to find day today FM people that have an understanding of what is a suitable and sufficient RA especially so as primarily their thoughts are to protect property and not people I would go with your colleagues ideas and opinions

Hi can I suggest you consider this document, http://www.fedps.org.uk/compliance_monitoring.pdf and then decide if an overall premises risk assessment is required.

I absolutely agree with the other H&S professional. You need to make sure that the gas heaters are emitting enough heat to warm the working environment, they need to make sure that the flues are straight, the electricity supply is sufficient, the heaters have been cleaned. It's a whole new set of rules that do not fall into the generalist H&S function. I do both EHS and facilities and what I consider important in one area is irrelevant many times in the other for example: machinery guarding - no impact on building maintenance but fundamental to working practices; non slip roof surfaces - no impact on general working practices but fundamental to building maintenance. Then again, competence in one area does not assume competence in another and a different skill set is required for building maintenance than for general working, many of the skills being higher hazard than your normal working practices. It's like comparing apples and pears and suggesting that as they adorn the same fruit bowl, they are the same fruit. They are not the same and should be treated as two completely independent items.