Industry News


NHS trust fined over asbestos removal at accommodation block


Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has been fined after refurbishment work undertaken in an accommodation block at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital exposed Trust employees and contractors to asbestos. Telford Magistrates’ Court heard Trust


employees were removing fixtures and fittings from the empty flat when they disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The Trust then failed to take adequate measures to deal with the initial release of asbestos, exposing other contractors who later worked in the flat. An investigation by the Health and Safety


Executive found the Trust did not properly record ACM on their estate. The Trust had arrangements in place to manage asbestos, however, the overall management plan for dealing with asbestos was not recorded in a clear and concise manner or effectively communicated to its employees and contractors working on site. The Trust had insufficient auditing procedures


to ensure that the arrangements contained in the policy and management plan were fully implemented, working properly and effective. The procedures in place upon the discovery of asbestos were inadequate and the Trust failed to prevent re-entry into the contaminated area by other workers. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust


of Mytton Oak Rd, Shrewsbury pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and were fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,385.80. The incident took place in June 2012, but has only recently been resolved in court. After the hearing HSE inspector David Kivlin


said: “The Trust should have controlled this potentially lethal risk by identifying the type, location and condition of any asbestos- containing-materials within the accommodation block at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, by implementing suitable precautions to prevent its disturbance. “Although there is no indication that members


of the public at the hospital were exposed as a result of the failings, asbestos related diseases are currently untreatable and claim the lives of an estimated 5,000 people per year in the UK. “This prosecution should act as a reminder,


not just to Hospitals but to anyone in control of the repair and maintenance of non-domestic premises, of the need to ensure that correct control measures are put in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable.”


London’s families living in cramped, substandard and unaffordable homes dubbed ‘slums of the future’


F


amilies in the capital are finding themselves in “cramped, substandard, and unaffordable homes” due to “flawed”


Government planning regulations, new research has found. Almost 16,000 homes have been built under


relaxed conversion to residential rules (Permitted Development) since 2013, but fewer than one per cent are affordable according to analysis from Labour’s London Assembly Housing spokesman, Tom Copley. His report, Slums of the Future – Permitted


Development Conversions in London, found that over half of Permitted Development homes identified flout minimum space standards, with one property in Croydon measuring just 10 square metres. Office space the size of 224 Wembley football pitches has been lost due to office-to-residential conversions during this period. Mr Copley urged the Government to scrap


Permitted Development, and said current proposals to extend it would result in “condemning tens of thousands more Londoners to living in miserable conditions” and place the high street in “serious jeopardy”. The rules allow developers to convert office and industrial buildings to residential use without going through the full planning process, to speed up the delivery of new homes.


London requires 65,000 new homes a year,


according to the New London Plan, with 65 per cent of these needing to be affordable. Analysis of London Development Database figures by Mr Copley, has revealed that of 15,929 homes built through these types of conversions since 2013, only 71 were affordable – accounting for just 0.4 per cent. With the Mayor of London’s current minimum


target set at 35 per cent on privately owned land, this means the capital has missed out on 5,504 affordable homes. Croydon has seen the largest number of Permitted Development conversions (2,722), followed by Hounslow, Sutton and Barnet. Lambeth and Islington, both inner London boroughs, are also seeing a significant impact. Copley said: “This cannot carry on. We need


to solve the national housing crisis, but subjecting London families to cramped, substandard and unaffordable homes is not the way to do it. Permitted Development is an unnecessary and deeply flawed policy. “If this continues unchecked, we will be


condemning tens of thousands more Londoners to living in miserable conditions. Some may call them ‘rabbit hutches’ or others ‘micro-homes’, but we must be clear about what we are building when we allow masses of Permitted Development conversions: the slums of the future.”


Councils reminded of their H&S duties after Home Standard breaches


The Regulator of Social Housing has written to all landlord councils in England reminding them of their health and safety obligations to tenants after recent breaches of the Home Standard. In a letter to council chief executives, the


regulator said it had recently issued regulatory notices to two local authorities which had failed its Home Standard on health and safety grounds. It reminded councils they must comply with


its standards even if the management and maintenance of its housing stock has been contracted to another body such as an ALMO. A regulatory notice was issued to Gateshead


Council in April over serious fire, asbestos and electrical safety concerns, while in August last year a notice was issued to Arun District Council for its failure to properly carry out fire and water risk assessments.


24 | HMM June/July 2019 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk The letter from the regulator’s chief executive


Fiona McGregor, said: “While the regulator’s governance and financial viability and Value for Money Standard do not apply to local authorities, the consumer standards do apply.” It added: “You may wish to seek your own


assurance that your authority is complying with the consumer standards. I would be grateful if you could bring this letter to the attention of your elected members.” After the Grenfell Tower fire two years


ago, the regulator sent a similar letter to all social landlords warning them that “boards and councillors must ensure they have proper oversight of all health and safety issues”. The letter stressed that contracting out services “does not contract out responsibility”.


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