Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Emma Forbes
If a building e.g. historic castle, which has listed status accessed by the public, can health and safety law by providing barriers on low walls etc, overrule listed building requirements?
TIA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Emma Forbes
I know that under HSWA that it is an Act and the others may be regulations and guidance, but where do we meet in the middle with both requirements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch 1
Hi Emma
I suggest you look at the Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group website. Google for VSCG.
It's all about getting the right balance between amenity etc and H&S.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Emma
First, your question is difficult to untangle partly due to several typos. If I understand you right, I know of no law which is superior to health and safety law. That said, the requirements of some bodies like English Heritage can be extremely onerous. As the 'landlord' of a listed building they may not allow work to take place unless they have approved the work and methodology for the protection of assets. Ensuring of course, that the contractor will not damage the building by design or accident. As with most things in life, it is better to liaise rather than adopt an adversarial position.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Emma Forbes
Sorry Raymond, you're right. My spurge on the screen is a result of my brain working quicker than my fingers!
What is meant is that when a historic site is open to the public, is there a requirement to make the site safe for public with provision of barriers/adequate lighting/other structural changes essential or is there a restriction under national/scottish heritage.
Thank you for the information on the Scottish countryside site.
In an ideal world I would imagine that H&S and heritage would work together but there must be some cases where NH or SNH require a place of interest to open although it doesn't meet basic H&S legislation and alterations would compromise the heritage....?
Sorry if I'm not making sense, study head is making it a minced head!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Emma, no worries - I've been there. Not too up to date with Scottish law, but certainly UK law requires that buildings should be safe for members of the public. No conflict as far as I can see.
There is of course the Occupier's Liability Act 1984, which is civil statute law and landlords would need to consider the implications of their duty of care towards visitors. Not forgetting good old HSWA, which pursuant s3(1) provides a duty inter alia not to expose persons not in their employment to h&s risks - see Crown v Trustees of the Science Museum 199?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John D Crosby
Hi Emma
Forget about which law has precedence because the likes of planners, English Heritage etc who look at listed buildings when alterations are to be made have a very powerful tool in that they can refuse to let you go ahead with what you want to make the place safe if they believe it is not in line with what the building should be. I always worked on the premise that a good risk assessment was the best tool we could use and very few agencies ever argued back. Sometimes it was coupled with a novel solution to the problem but I never left a place unsafe.
John C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
Emma,
Law is law. There’s no superiority or inferiority thing in legislation. In order to make such structural changes, you need to apply for a planning permission. Normally, such permission are granted. However, if the risk are greater, a immediate steps can be taken to avoid an injury and ill health. The relevant legislation would be useful;
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
9 Offences
(1) If a person contravenes section 7 he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), if a person executing or causing to be executed any works in relation to a listed building under a listed building consent fails to comply with any condition attached to the consent, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters—
(a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
S T
You said "Law is law. There’s no superiority or inferiority thing in legislation."
Whilst not relevant to this particular query, another thread clearly shows that H&S trumps the DDA.
I think "it depends upon circumstances"!!
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
“H&S trumps the DDA”
Colin,
This one would be interesting, Can you please direct me to this concerned thread.
ST
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
Colin,
I would appreciate if you can provide some examples to support your comments.
ST
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Emma Forbes
Thanks everyone for your contributions and the interetsing comments re: DDA. Food for thought anyway.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
Colin,
Thanks for the links. These links discuss what is reasonably practicable as mentioned in the legislations. Others discuss exemptions in regulations, as quoted by yourself;
“DDA Section 21(1) allows for not complying with the DDA requirements under certain circumstances”
If a piece of legislation allows (exempts) something then you can not breach that. Exemptions mean no law/breaches. Therefore, you can not say that one legislation takes preference to the other.
Any legislation breach will have penalty.
ST
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.