Feature


of the building is for the end-user, and designers often focus on the aesthetics. But equally, someone needs to ensure that these ‘aesthetics’ are effectively maintained. Besides, these workers – installers, roofing contractors and even school caretakers – are also end-users of the building and their needs should be considered in the design. This isn’t just about designing ‘in’ safety features such as anchorage points for roof or HVAC maintenance. There’s also the matter of designing ‘out’ potential issues in repairs and refurbishment. For example, introducing LED or fibre-optics on lighting installations can minimise or all but eliminate the need for regular bulb replacement. Clearly, all of this calls for the early


identification of issues so that they can be addressed in the design stage. And if safety isn’t enough of a reason for architects and specifiers to plan ahead, there’s another compelling reason for doing so: cost. Retrofitting safety can be more expensive in comparison to including safety measures at the beginning of a building’s design. Take Building Maintenance Units (BMUs) and


Mobile Elevated Work platforms (MEWS) for example, they cause numerous problems including causing delays, with consequent knock-on effects for budgets and completion as well as ruining precious views and damage in high winds. Compared with these, rope access – with the appropriate anchorage points – provides a safe, simple and cost-effective solution. Moreover, adding anchorage points after the build introduces unnecessary engineering and structural challenges, while if there was ever a serious problem on the roof, and no equipment had been put in place to maintain it, there could be significant cost implications, not to mention liability risks in the event that an accident occurs. Working safely at height is better achieved with the benefit of foresight. Developed by experts from RIBA, HSE,


the access industry and RICS, many of these issues and points are highlighted in the BS 8560:2012 Code of practice for the design of buildings incorporating safe work at height. It is important key stakeholders


evaluate challenges as early as possible, and incorporate practical and efficient solutions in their designs. Within the regulations of the Code of practice, there is a reference to clearly marking safety hazards on the actual plans, so that everyone – especially contractors and installers – have full clarity on safety issues which isn’t currently the case. This recommendation has not been universally adopted, nor has the code had far-reaching impact. It seems that there’s a combination of


factors standing in the way of progress, not least the different priorities and perspectives of the key parties. Everyone wants safety of course, but while it’s the primary consideration of the HSE for example, contractors are also thinking about cost, owners about building ROI, and architects about design aesthetics. In this mix of interests, perhaps the question of safety itself is being juggled between many different sets of hands, with the potential that it, too, might occasionally slip between the fingers. And it’s here that an answer might lie. Safety is not the sole responsibility


of any one party. The 2005 Regulations make this clear, identifying figures such as Architects, Facilities Managers, Contractors and Building owners as ‘duty-holders’ responsible for ensuring that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that the risks from fragile surfaces are properly controlled. ‘Properly’ planned and controlled isn’t compatible with hasty last minute measures. Working at height needs to be factored into design plans from the outset and safety considerations should bring specifiers, contractors, installers and the industry together in a more considered and collaborative approach. By thinking about fall protection early and incorporating it in designs, there will be savings in terms of time and cost – and, presumably, lives


fmuk 33


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