Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By GavinR
Pretty straight forward question i think but just wanted a second opinion really. A flat roof is being repaired to a church and will only be accessed on at most a yearly basis for inspection. There is no plant or equipment on the roof and no means of permenant access available. Obiviously safety precautions will be in place for the construction phase of the repairs but with regard to the future maintenance & up-keep of the roof should permanent fall prevention systems be recommedended to the church or due to the infrequent nature of maintenance and inspection would be it be ok to simply state residual risk and state the requirement of a safe system of work to be developed for future work by competent persons?
Hope this makes sense?!! Thanks for any help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Pope
It's difficult to answer such a site specific question. Unfortunately there seems to be no way the system allows us to answer you off the record. Your idea sounds ok - but you'll see a recent thread about unlawful access and barbed wire so think about that as well !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Patrick Burns CMIOSH - SpDipEM - MIQA
What is foreseen as the future maintenance requirements? Flat roofs are not normally very strong structures to walk on therefore apart from a fall from height at the edge of the building there may be a risk of falling through the roof depending upon the construction and material. One has to ask the question what maintenance is required and can this be done without accessing the roof.
Visual inspections could be done from a ladder/portable scaffold platform/cherry picker depending upon height.
I would have thought that it might have been more cost effective to replace the roof with a pitched and tiled one as it required replacing and this type would have lasted significantly longer with less likelihood of problems that flat roofs give you.
My garage is a flat roof however I am aware that due to a mistake by the contractor repairing it the last time it now has 2 x 1.5 inch plywood surfaces and is therefore strong enough for me to access. However I can carry out my own maintenance inspection internally for any leaks and externally from my landing window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GavinR
Thank you for your replies and advice. The roof is def strong enough to support the weight of a person accessing it but i do agree that preventing people having to go onto the roof would be best form of defence.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Patrick
Not sure about your argument that now you have a double layer of playwood on your
garage roof it is strong enough to access!!
The crux of the matter will be the support for the (now double) weight of the roof elements,
by way of the beams supporting the roof elements.
Whilst the two layers of plywood may be more than sufficient to support the weight of a person
if the support beams are not of adequate strength, the additional weight of a person
in conjunction with the additional weight of the second plywood layer could in fact
push the supporting beams beyond their failure point and add to the risk of the roof
collapsing when being accessed by a person...
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jerry Lucey
Goodmorning Gavin,
If you are in a position to design protection into the roof as part of your works you should risk assess future roofwork/ maintenance and implement reasonably practicable measures to protect personnel carrying out roof works in this area. While the liklihood of an injury is reduced by someone only carrying out works annually the consequences of such an injury remains just as serious.
It may not be sufficient to state that a safe system will be developed at a later stage. I would risk assess the nature of the work and the risk associated and endeavour to implement measures e.g. edge protection or at a minimum a latch on system.
It may also be worth having a look at the new definition of reasonably practicable as defined in the Irish Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 as this seems to be the minimum acceptable level of protection that will be acceptable in the future where the requirement is reasonably practicable.
Hope this helps a little Gavin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.