PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
P
Eurocodes: professionalism is “falling short” in UK construction rofessionalism is
“falling short” in the UK construction industry
with a poor understanding of Eurocodes amongst British construction companies.
The pan-European model building codes developed by the European Committee for Standardisation should have been fully adopted in the UK from April 2, 2010, when British Standard codes for construction stopped being updated.
“This is a potentially massive issue: our research indicates that the vast majority of construction industry professionals are blissfully unaware that Eurocodes are here - and that two-thirds of civil engineers feel uncomfortable with Eurocodes - and that
they have been designing and specifying buildings to outdated British Standards since updates stopped,” said Paul Cowton of property and construction consultancy McBains Cooper.
“Only around a third of civil engineers said they’ve received any Eurocodes training. It’s a ticking time bomb, and sooner or later there’s going to be a slip up resulting in litigation at the very least.
“British Standards for building will be withdrawn completely in 2013, and simply aren’t being updated. But so far as we can see, the vast majority of professionals in building design simply don’t know about Eurocodes, but the front-line engineers do.
“We attended a seminar recently,
and, anecdotally, literally 90% of the construction professionals in the room had not even heard of Eurocodes.
“So confusion reigns. If something goes wrong, there is huge potential for litigation, because they’re not designing to current best standards or using current best practice. There is a strong potential for legal action under duty of care.
“This is about professionalism in the construction sector and, frankly, it is falling apart when it comes to Eurocodes. But it is a tediously important piece of legislation.
“Back in April we warned that Eurocodes will sneak up and bite any UK construction company or professional services business
I
Time for localism on urban rail n response to the DfT’s
consultation on the future of rail franchising pteg has set out new proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities for city region rail networks.
Rail Cities in the 21st Century - the case for devolution calls for a radical approach to the future of local rail networks in the major urban areas outside London through transferring more powers, funding and decision- making from Whitehall to locally accountable PTEs.
In support of the vision document pteg today also published a research report by Atkins, Enhancing the PTE Role on Rail in the City Regions which shows that devolving local rail powers has already transformed rail services in London, Merseyside and Scotland. The report finds that ‘the case for devolution for local and regional rail is a strong one’ and that
Oct/Nov 10
devolution can ‘offer more hands on, proactive and committed management in accommodating patronage growth, improving performance and delivering a higher quality service’.
Where power is devolved, the report shows that:
rail is given greater priority, with more focus given to addressing local needs, maximising performance and delivering a better service for passengers; investment rises to cater for, or foster, increased passenger demand, for example, through improved rolling stock or re- opening of lines;
performance and service levels improve, feeding into greater customer satisfaction; and decision-making becomes more joined up across modes and policy objectives, including on capital investment, integrated fares and ticketing, and branding.
Chair of pteg, Neil Scales, said:
that does not recognise their importance.
“The EU directive states that national codes were to be withdrawn on 31st March 2010, and the BSI has confirmed they are complying with that directive and will not be supporting changes to British Standards beyond March. The updating of building regulations to reflect this directive will not take place until 2013. Many engineers see this as the point of no return when they must use the Eurocodes.
“The fact is that it is the contracts that will decide when we must change, particularly public contracts which will undoubtedly require the change to take place immediately.”
‘It’s time to end remote control from Whitehall and realise the full potential of urban rail for the city regions. As locally accountable strategic transport authorities we are well placed to give big city rail networks the priority they deserve as part of wider integrated transport networks for the city regions. The research we have published today clearly shows that when you devolve responsibilities for local rail, passengers get a better deal as a result. This is because local decision-makers know just how important local rail is to wider city economies and as a result devolution brings more focus on improving performance, investment in services and rolling stock, and on ensuring local rail is fully integrated with the wider public transport network.’
‘The best format for devolution will depend on local
circumstances and aspirations but could range from full vertical integration of track and trains
for self-contained networks like Merseyrail, to a much greater role in specification and responsibility for local rail services elsewhere in our areas. Stations too are an area where we think we could raise standards through applying our wider experience in delivering and managing first rate public transport interchanges in a cost effective way.’
Managing director of London Rail Ian Brown said: ‘London Overground has been a real success story, demonstrating that more local control can deliver real benefits for passengers and stimulate investment. Our experiences of rail devolution in London show what can be done and I am pleased to be able to support pteg and their vision for rail in the city regions. Collectively we need government to unlock the potential for more local control and to deliver the railways all of our cities need.’
rtm93
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100