Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
Architects Still Getting Designing out Risk for WAH
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
realist  
#1 Posted : 13 February 2016 12:24:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
realist
Interested in anyone who has a view on Architects who are still putting man safe systems as a first resort. We act as Principal Designer for clients and we are still seeing lots of architects putting in man safe systems as a first resort. This totally goes against the CDM 2015 to design out risk of working at height. The CDM 2015 Principal Designer roles was thought by the HSE that architects would take on this role. The lack of safety knowledge is frightening and no wonder insurers are reluctant to insure architects in this role.
Back to top
bob youel  
#2 Posted : 14 February 2016 08:07:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel
In my view clients are the main problem as designers have to do what clients want in the end unless a specific laws spells out that it cannot be done and clients want cheap and pretty above all else and time and again I have sat with designers who want to do things right but the client [& their finance people] have knocked them back so at best compromises have taken place

As for the HSE; well enough said as they enforce little and not against clients who are dictating design
Back to top
SP900308  
#3 Posted : 15 February 2016 08:29:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SP900308
I sat in a design review meeting discussing this very thing a couple / three years back in good old Bristol! Aesthetics was the overwhelming problem with collective fall prevention and how it would transform/spoil the design 'vision'. We explored all areas of the roof that would require operational access for inspection and maintenance tasks and provided said safe access to them. A compromise was reached and the building looks as crisp as the Architect / Client envisaged with safety in design achieved.

I have attached a link to the finished build for you to get a feel for the finished building. Hope it works.....:

http://www.technal.com/e...iption/Leisure/HENGROVE/

Simon
Back to top
Xavier123  
#4 Posted : 15 February 2016 08:39:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123
Definitely still an ongoing problem. I work in an area that has lots of tall buildings with window cleaning/maintenance issues.
Rope access is often the cheap and easy solution. Not to put it down as it can be very safe, but only when design is adequate - and certainly shouldn't be the de facto first choice. Complex facades, no provision for dedicated anchors/no safe access to anchors etc. are all matters that don't appear to receive sufficient attention.
Often project teams seem to start out well but as costs mount they are value engineered down to the minimum. There is a real education piece needed out there for the design team across the board.
Back to top
chas  
#5 Posted : 15 February 2016 10:19:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chas
I regularly have this problem with designers. With the last three major new builds/refurbishments we have had there have been lengthy discussions about the use of harnesses on flat roofs. Just recently I got my way about having a hand rail installed on a new flat roof only to have the designer say that it cannot now be done because the low parapet wall won't support the handrail fixings(!!?) so they now want to use anchor devices for personnel instead. Needless to say I do not agree with their solution and the discussion is on going with the designers looking at alternatives. I certainly feel there needs to be a change in designer attitudes. Collective protection is not seen as an important first choice issue when personal protection is an easy fix.
Back to top
Jane Blunt  
#6 Posted : 15 February 2016 11:32:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt
I have lost the argument with designers over this issue. Their argument was that edge protection would not look pretty. This apparently trumped the legal argument - even when presented in writing, with an extract from a relevant HSE document.
Back to top
gramsay  
#7 Posted : 15 February 2016 11:49:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gramsay
SP900308 wrote:
I sat in a design review meeting discussing this very thing a couple / three years back in good old Bristol! Aesthetics was the overwhelming problem with collective fall prevention and how it would transform/spoil the design 'vision'. We explored all areas of the roof that would require operational access for inspection and maintenance tasks and provided said safe access to them. A compromise was reached and the building looks as crisp as the Architect / Client envisaged with safety in design achieved.

I have attached a link to the finished build for you to get a feel for the finished building. Hope it works.....:

http://www.technal.com/e...iption/Leisure/HENGROVE/

Simon


Great to have a real example - thanks Simon. What did you settle on for this project?
Back to top
SP900308  
#8 Posted : 15 February 2016 12:47:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SP900308
Hi Gramsay,
If you look on google maps you can just about make out protected walkways to specific locations on the roof. This meant no unnecessary edge protection around the sleek lines of the roofing, just in locations to facilitate maintenance access.

An interesting project!
Simon
Back to top
SP900308  
#9 Posted : 15 February 2016 12:58:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SP900308
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET