Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi My company have taken possession of a derelict building (currently awaiting final planning approval with works due to start at the end of this year to rebuild/alter) The building itself is 4 storeys high, fallen into a state of disrepair (been empty years) and has had fire damage so is therefore dangerous (weak floors, no roof etc) but the front is listed so needs to be retained. We have now installed a facade retention scheme built using scaffold & kentillage blocks (fully designed) to stop it falling down but my issue is how far do we as a company need to go to prevent intruders - if anyone access the scaffold they have many points to get into the unsafe building as there are no windows in it (if you go in the building there is a good chance of falling through the floors and dying as a result) Would it be deemed we took all reasonable precautions if the site perimeter is fully secured (by hoarding or heras fence) with warning signage and the ladder access is removed from the bottom lift of the scaffold and a weekly recorded inspection of the perimeter fence ? Should we be looking at boarding all windows as well? realistically speaking scaffolding is easy to climb up onto if people really want to, hoarding bottom of scaffold is not an option due to the complex design
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A lot depends on “how dangerous” it is - you may be looking at more than HASAW here, so there may be specific requirements over and above “Reasonably Practicable”- are there any Building Control requirements to stop it falling down? Or many years ago ( over 30!) used to work for a Local Authority Environmental Health Team, one of the things we did was requiring owers to secure buildings against kids - sometimes this was done every week as we knew the kids would break back in. Long time since I did this, I think it was the Public Nuisance legislation at the time - it may have changed.
|
 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
By dangerous i mean the floors inside would not hold the weight of someone, they are too rotten and fire damaged the whole building is to be ripped out once we get planning permision in place but likely we wouldnt start until the end of the ear by the time contracts are placed etc. the new building will likely be steel frame connected to the existinng retained facade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi It is often assumed that no duty of care exists towards trespassers and should subsequent injury occur then no liability would exist. Occupiers of premises, however, have duties to protect trespassers from the risk of injury by virtue of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 and s3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The potential for civil damages and prosecution can be significant if not adequately controlled. The Occupiers liability Act 1984 duty of care to trespassers arises only when: - the occupier is aware of a danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;
- knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that a trespasser may be, or come into the vicinity of danger and;
- in all the circumstances of the case, the risk of a trespasser coming into the vicinity of the danger is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.
There is therefore a test of ‘reasonableness’ under this Act. S3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provides a duty towards non-employees (this would include trespassers) and is qualified by the term ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. It will not, therefore be necessary to fully protect trespassers from all possible injury but occupiers must be proactive in their approach to identifying and controlling potential hazards on their site taking into account the vulnerability of the potential trespasser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Robert, it's all about what is reasonable and/or reasonably practicable. Not clear from your posting where the perimeter of the site is compared to the building. Most of the sites that I have come across with similar conditions to those you describe face onto public pavements and usually a fence of hoarding would be erected along the face of the facade protection, sometimes necessitating pavement closure (and permission to do this from the highway authority). But such sites tend to be in busy urban locations and yours might be in the middle of nowhere. So it's about judging how likely it is that people will attempt to bypass the protections you have already put in place including any Dangerous Building type signage and then deciding whether there is more that is reasonable. That might include security patrols (visiting or permanent), but might not. No easy answer - each case on its merits.
I've dealt with one site where there was a boundary wall, client spent a fortune covering over doors and windows and those who wanted to get in just lifted manhole covers in the site roadways and got in to derelict buildings via the voids underneath, despite full time security presence. Then set fire to an A Listed Building destroying its heritage wooden staircase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.