Safety
Management
A British Safety Council publication
July 2022
Raising
standards
Designing in fire safety
at the drawing board
Top hearing
tech
Firing back
Can post-Grenfell regulations make
buildings safe again? – 20-23, 30-31
Warning workers in
real-time to protect
against hearing damage
Safety awards
International Safety Awards
winners recognised at Gala Dinner
15
MINUTES
When there’s
no
time
to spare
When every second counts: Introducing the Dräger PARAT®
Emergency Escape Hood range with 15 minutes escape time.
In case of a fire, a quick escape is vital for the safety of employees. The PARAT® escape hoods
are easy to use and designed to protect the user from toxic fire related substances for at least 15
minutes. It’s as simple as that.
draeger.com
Contents
Editor’s
note
Editor Stephen Cooke
stephen.cooke@britsafe.org
publications@britsafe.org
Deputy editor Thomas Tevlin
tom.tevlin@britsafe.org
News & features Belinda Liversedge
belinda.liversedge@britsafe.org
Graphics & design
Dean Papadopoullos
dean.papadopoullos@britsafe.org
Advertisement sales
Member Trade
0116 326 5533
Jas Singh
jas@membertrade.co.uk
Subscriptions
customer.service@britsafe.org
Editorial advisory panel:
Dame Carol Black, Laura Cameron,
Sir Cary Cooper, Dr Shaun Davis,
Professor Adam Finkel, Professor
Ragnar Löfstedt, Neal Stone
Safety Management ISSN 0951 2624 is
aimed at anyone with health, safety and
environment responsibilities and those
who need and want to stay informed
about the latest news, legislation,
research and best practice in the field.
Published by the British Safety Council
(70 Chancellors Road, London, W6 9RS,
United Kingdom).
The opinions expressed do not
necessarily reflect the views of the
British Safety Council. Reference
to names of firms and commercial
products and processes does not
imply our endorsement.
Front cover photograph:
iStock/AlenaPaulus
Stephen Cooke
Head of policy and
communications
British Safety Council
H
ow far have we come since 72
people tragically lost their lives
in the fire at Grenfell Tower five
years ago?
If you measured progress in new
legislation, then you might argue that a
lot has happened. The Fire Safety Act
and Building Safety Act are now in place,
though much more detail is to come
in Secondary legislation that will be
published over the next 12 to 18 months.
The new Building Safety Regulator is
also being established at the HSE. But
we know it takes time to recruit and fill all
roles and for a new organisation to get
fully up and running.
Progress has been made, though,
with new stages being introduced to the
planning process, and Gateway One is
already putting developers under much
more scrutiny than was previously the case.
Our main feature story, on pages 20
to 23, asks if we can be ‘confident the
system which so catastrophically let
residents down that night is improving
and that it will save lives’.
It goes on to cite a progress report by
Dame Judith Hackitt earlier this year, who
led the independent review of building
and fire safety regulations in 2018, which
said: “We still see an industry that, at
best, is in compliance mode rather than
a leadership mode.”
We have brought a number of expert
voices together this month to explore
what more needs to be done to move
from simply complying to truly leading
the way to a fire safety regime which not
only avoids any future fires like Grenfell,
but also does justice to each and every
one of the 72 souls whose lives were cut
short in June 2017.
03
04
Viewpoint
News
03 Safety is not a political football –
so please don’t kick it!
04 Haulage sector faces deadline
to raise roadside standards
05 Hermes Parcelnet fined £850k
for man killed during training
09 MPs and peers get behind
Keep Thriving campaign
10 International Safety Awards Gala
Dinner celebrates the winners
14
Features
Find us on:
sm.britsafe.org
www.britsafe.org
apple.com/uk/ios/app-store
play.google.com/store
britishsafetycouncil
@BritSafe
company/british-safety-council
instagram.com/britishsafetycouncil
20 High hopes: will the tall building
sector grasp its new duties?
28 Fire safety laws and standards:
more action needed
30 All change: uncertainties linger
over new fire safety regime
41 Stay protected in the sun
43 Cutting through the noise
46 Cable strikes: let’s make
digging safer
16
Comment
18 Ruth Jones MP: we need
a new Clean Air Act
24 Designing in fire safety: HSE
on what’s required now
48 Offshore oil & gas and shipping:
a complex legal picture
sm.britsafe.org | 1
Helps you build a healthy, profitable and
sustainable future for your company.
Sign up now:
www.beingwelltogether.org
support@beingwelltogether.org
T. +44 (0)20 8600 1000
• Flexible health, safety and wellbeing
solutions tailored to your needs
• Unique tools to benchmark your organisation
• Access to industry leading HR, health,
safety and wellbeing tools
• Advice and support from industry experts
to help you every step of the way.
BT201
The first truly
joined-up
approach to
employee
health, safety
and wellbeing
Viewpoint
Safety is not a
political football
– so please don’t
kick it!
Mike Robinson FCA
Chief executive
British Safety Council
S
afety is in the news again and, unfortunately,
not always for the right reasons.
We probably all suffered in some way
because of the rail strikes, which brought the
country to a standstill in June and were the biggest
for over 30 years.
But too many times, ‘safety’ has been used by
people on all sides of this dispute as a political football
to be kicked about during foghorn diplomacy.
Without going into the specifics on the issues
being discussed here, I am all too aware that in
many workplaces, questions of people’s health
and safety – which should be approached calmly
and with a level head – can generate heat and light
when disagreements arise between a workforce
and their senior leaders.
Sometimes there are real safety questions which
should be addressed objectively and with common
sense. Too often, safety is an excuse for falling out,
when many other factors are clearly at play.
On the railways, there is a genuine debate to be
had about whether all their working practices are fit
for the 21st century. But there is also a discussion that
should be taking place about the physical, mental and
emotional state of the workforce following two years of
a pandemic, where many people’s jobs and livelihoods
were put at risk, and trust was damaged as a result.
It is a similar story in aviation, hospitality, retail
and of course public services like hospitals and
schools. We have a workforce being asked to get
back to normal running when staff numbers have not
returned to pre-pandemic levels, absences are high
due to Covid and pay is lagging well behind inflation.
The rail dispute has clearly shifted from a simple
industrial dispute into the realm of high politics, but
I think there is also something deeper going on.
A TfL train driver on the Victoria line said about
There is a
virtuous
circle that all
workplaces
should be
aiming for –
where people’s
safety, health
and wellbeing
are thought
about in an
integrated
way.
the rail strikes: “During the pandemic we had a lot
of staff with Covid, a lot of staff with long Covid,
we’ve had colleagues pass away. Yet we still ran a
full service as best we could. I think a lot of the staff
have just about had enough.”
An engineering apprentice at Network Rail in
Yorkshire said: “I think this isn’t only about rail, most
workers in this country are already doing enough
and shouldn’t be struggling to get by. In my view this
strike is an opportunity for these issues to become
a broader talking point about fairness, and about an
economy that works for the people.”
A maintenance worker in the South West
of England commented: “Working nights and
weekends and what that does to your body – is that
actually worth it for not much more than an Amazon
driver makes, working Monday to Friday?”
Each industry needs to judge its pay levels. But
as a society, we also need to decide what value we
place on different roles people do and whether we
can truly expect them to stay motivated, committed
and engaged when they are worrying about
whether they can keep financially afloat.
After all, what we are talking about here is
people’s wellbeing, specifically their financial
wellbeing, and whether the work they do is
beneficial to their wellbeing, or whether it leaves
them more stressed, anxious and does not pay
enough even to meet basic needs.
There is a virtuous circle that all workplaces
should be aiming for – where people’s safety, health
and wellbeing are thought about in an integrated
way. Good employers know this, great ones do it.
But until we all take a more holistic view about
health, safety and wellbeing and the impact that
each has on the other, we will end up back at the
negotiating table again and again.
sm.britsafe.org | 3
News
News from the health,
safety and environmental
management sector
Haulage sector faces
deadline to raise
roadside standards
Visit Safety Management website:
sm.britsafe.org
Photograph:
iStock/davidf
T
he government must force road freight
operators to improve welfare conditions for
drivers or more of them will leave the sector,
a committee has warned.
The shortage of HGV drivers has been an
issue for more than a decade, said the Transport
Committee, but the Covid-19 pandemic has turned
a ‘chronic’ issue into an ‘acute’ one.
With low pay and poor facilities, the sector
has found it difficult to compete with record job
vacancies across many sectors in the UK economy.
Anti-social and long hours have also contributed
to the shortfall, it says, with many drivers simply not
prepared to put up with not seeing their families
and a poor work–life balance.
The Transport Committee is now urging the
government in its latest report to impose a two-year
deadline on the logistics sector to improve facilities,
or pay the price. This would take the form of a levy or
tax on companies which make the most profits.
As well as a levy, there could be a minimum
standard for facilities, such as healthy food options,
sufficient provision for women drivers, good security
and availability of clean toilets and showers.
4 | sm.britsafe.org
“
We need better
conditions to
make moving
essential goods
a sound career
choice.
Giving support to the
recommendations, Mike Robinson,
chief executive of the British Safety
Council, said: “MPs are right to call for
better facilities for HGV drivers. The
lack of these not only deters people
from joining the industry, but the frankly
squalid conditions are forcing people
to leave the sector in their droves.
“Last year, for example, nearly a third
of the people who had just joined voted
with their feet and left. This has a knockon effect on the whole supply chain,
exacerbates the cost-of-living crisis,
and the government must work harder
with the sector to raise its game and
retain its workforce better.”
He said the MPs’ proposal of a
new levy on the industry, if it fails to
deliver the improvements, should be
a ‘last resort’ given the current rise in
operating costs. “Setting minimum
quality standards for driver facilities,
including for women drivers, does make
sense. The government should take note
of this important report and act on its
recommendations.”
According to the ONS, the number
of working HGV drivers fell by 30,300
in the first quarter of 2022. A total of
44,000 and 49,000 drivers left the
industry in Q3 and Q4 2021 respectively.
Chair of the Transport Committee,
Huw Merriman MP, said: “The long-term
solution lies in moving more freight to
rail and water. This will help decarbonise
the sector and make it more attractive to
drivers who want to operate over shorter
distances; drivers who want to see their
families at the end of a hard day rather
than facing anti-social and dangerous
nights sleeping in their cabs.
“In the near-term, we need better
conditions to make moving essential
goods a sound career choice.”
He added: “The dire alternative is
that drivers will go elsewhere and the
essential goods we take for granted will
be in short supply.”
Read the Transport Select
Committee’s report here:
bit.ly/3xEFgVN
News
Surge of violent incidents
in GP practices and shops
Hermes Parcelnet fined
£850k for man killed
during training
D
elivery and courier services firm, Hermes Parcelnet
(now Evri), has been fined £850,000 after a worker was
fatally crushed while working at a parcel sorting centre.
David Kennedy was receiving training on how to operate a
trailer mover at the firm’s Eurocentral depot near Motherwell
on 19 March 2019.
At around 10.15pm the 43-year-old was struck in the chest
by the tiller head of the mover and pinned against a stationary
trailer while using it to reposition a laden articulated trailer in
the depot yard.
He was taken to hospital but died of his injuries two days later.
In the case which was investigated by Scotland’s Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), it was found
that the firm’s training plan set out how towing a trailer should
not take place until the second hour of the training. Yet, Mr
Kennedy started his practical training around 30 minutes before
the incident occurred. ln that time he was already involved in
moving a laden trailer with the mover.
The COPFS also found that the in-house trainer at
Eurocentral had not been equipped or instructed to deliver the
training. No one at the site had monitored whether training had
taken place properly.
Alistair Duncan, head of the Health, and Safety Investigation
Unit of the COPFS, said: “David Kennedy lost his life in
circumstances which were foreseeable and entirely avoidable.”
“By failing to identify the risks arising from providing training
to employees in the operation of a trailer mover Hermes
Parcelnet Limited put their employees at unacceptable risk.”
The company has since removed all trailer movers from
service across its UK sites.
Hermes Parcelnet Limited appeared at Hamilton Sheriff
Court and admitted breaching health and safety laws at the
depot between August 2018 and March 2019.
They pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the safety of
employees and failing to provide a system of work which was
‘reasonably’ practical, safe and without risks.
Photograph: iStock/
huettenhoelscher
The number of violent incidents at UK
GP practices has almost doubled in
less than five years, according to
figures obtained from police forces
across the UK.
Police forces recorded 1,068 violent
incidents between 2021 and 2022,
up from 586 between 2017 and 2018.
The data was obtained under a
freedom of information request sent
by the British Medical Journal.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of
the British Medical Association,
commented “It is unacceptable that
GPs and their staff are afraid and at
risk of being verbally or physically
abused, when they are working amid
exceptional pressures and striving to
do their best for patients.”
He added that GP practices are
facing unmanageable levels of demand
with 2,000 fewer GPs than in 2015.
Richard Vautrey, a GP in Leeds and
former chair of the BMA’s General
Practitioners Committee, warned that
the rise in violent incidents and abuse
aimed at colleagues is causing some
to leave their jobs. “We have to try to
address this because it leads to burnout
of our staff, demoralisation, and staff
leaving the service altogether,” he said.
The investigation follows data
showing a rise in violence against
shopworkers, with incidents more than
tripling over the pandemic. The British
Retail Consortium (BRC) Annual Retail
Crime Survey found the number of
incidents against shopworkers surged
to 1,301 each day in the year to March
2021, from 455 per day a year earlier.
Paddy Lillis, Usdaw general
secretary, said: “As the cost-of-living
crisis bites things could get worse. We
know from previous experience that
when things get tough, shoplifting goes
up, which is a concern for our members
as it can be a further trigger for violence
and abuse.
“The government must provide the
co-ordination needed to ensure that
retail employers, police and the courts
work together to make stores safe
places for our members to work and
for customers to shop.”
BMJ investigation:
bit.ly/3y63aJS
sm.britsafe.org | 5
News
Photograph:
iStock/drazen_
Review to consider
future of work in
post-Covid era
The government has appointed MP Matt Warman to lead a
review into the future of work.
His task will be to establish the key questions to address on
the future of work as we emerge from the pandemic.
Topics on the agenda are likely to include the role of
automation and how we can build on the ‘good’ flexibility in the
UK’s job market and the gig economy.
It will assess the role of local job markets in facilitating
access to good jobs as part of ‘levelling up’. Warman will also
seek views on where skills development is most needed to
drive future economic growth.
Study raises questions
over ‘safe’ dust levels
on London’s Tube
Dust on the London Underground
could cause serious infections such
as pneumonia to those working in the
tunnels, a study conducted on mice
has shown.
The Lancet study assesses how
far particulate matter (PM) from
underground stations may increase
the risk of contracting clinicallyrecognised conditions.
Researchers collected dust from
the Bakerloo and Jubilee line platforms
at Baker Street station. The dust was
mixed with saline and transferred
onto the noses of laboratory mice.
Exposure increased the mice’s risk
6 | sm.britsafe.org
“
This is not
WKHƣUVWWLPH
DJRYHUQPHQW
KDVFDUULHG
RXWWKLVVRUW
RIDUHYLHZ
of death from lung infections such
as pneumonia and led to increased
bacteria in blood circulation.
Professor Grigg, lead author of
the study conducted by Queen Mary
University, told the Evening Standard:
“I think the bottom line is that Tube
dust, at least in the deep Underground
lines, which is generated by the trains
and the tracks, is not just ‘nuisance
dust’ you can ignore.”
Transport for London said that
monitoring has shown that dust levels
on the Tube remain ‘well below’ the
limits set by HSE. TfL added that it
would work with the university to
ensure “we fully understand the
possible health risks associated with
dust on the tube.”
Previous studies have found
Commenting on his appointment,
Warman, who is MP for Boston and
Skegness, said: “The nature of work is
changing at a rapid pace and Britain
is uniquely positioned to seize new
opportunities. I’m delighted to be asked
by the Prime Minister to examine how
best we can do so in the post-Covid era.”
However, commenting in an article
for law firm DAC Beachcroft, lawyers
Zoë Wigan, Ceri Fuller and Hilary Larter,
write that there have been similar, recent
reviews. For example, the Taylor Review
of Modern Working Practices in July
2017 which made recommendations to
government – which it largely accepted
– around good work and legislation.
They write: “This is not the first
time a government has carried out
this sort of a review. Many of the
recommendations of the Taylor Review
of Modern Working practices are yet
to be implemented. Given the lack of
progress on employment law it seems
currently unlikely that much will come of
this review.”
The review will gather evidence
over the summer. A written report,
including recommendations, will then
be submitted.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:
“It’s fantastic that Matt Warman has
agreed to take on this important piece of
work. This review will look at how we can
equip people with the skills they need to
thrive in the workplace no matter where
they’re from.”
that air pollution on the London
Underground is linked to health
problems including heart disease,
strokes and lung cancer.
Research carried out by King’s
College London in 2019 on various
parts of the network found that
concentrations of fine particles
(PM2.5) were 15 times higher than
above ground. Levels were greater
than those found in the subway
networks of cities including Beijing,
Los Angeles, Mexico, New York
and Seoul.
Air pollution experts have advised
that commuters could reduce their
exposure by travelling by overground
where possible or using alternative
forms of travel such as walking
or cycling.
Advertisements
lone worker
protection
Unit F, 47 Blackborough Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 7BU
T *( info@sbes.co.uk
www.sbes.co.uk
EX
sm.britsafe.org | 7
News
Photograph:
iStock/GregorBister
Construction firms must
do better on skin cancer,
urges Arco
Safety products and services firm, Arco, is urging construction
companies to follow best practice around sun safety on site
to stop hundreds of preventable deaths from skin cancer.
Each year, there are 48 deaths and 241 cases of melanoma
skin cancer in Britain caused by ultraviolet rays from the sun
at work. Of these, construction workers made up the highest
number of deaths (44 per cent), according to a study by
Imperial College.
Arco says that most organisations believe they are already
implementing sufficient measures to combat the risk of
sun exposure.
However, there is still a common misconception that the UK
is not sunny enough to pose a high risk, even though up to 90
per cent of dangerous UV rays still get through light cloud and
the strength of solar radiation is not connected to temperature.
To help combat the issue, Arco has made free resources
available including a new video toolbox talk. The company is
also offering on-site training sessions on sun safety delivered
by an industrial skincare specialist. Concerned employers are
offered a skin analysis tool to monitor skin problems in staff
and a UV scanner to reveal any signs of skin damage.
Nick Foort, workplace skincare specialist at Arco, said:
“Getting painful sunburn just once every two years can triple
the risk of melanoma skin cancer. It is therefore vital employers
understand their responsibility and legal duty of care when
protecting their workers from UV radiation.
“Responsible action is much more than simply providing
sun cream. A change in culture and education levels allows for
prevention and early detection of issues, such as skin cancer.”
He added: “In the UK there are over 1,500 new cases of
non-melanoma skin cancer and 240 cases of malignant
melanoma skin cancer every year. Sun safety is not optional
and shouldn’t be treated as such.
“It is vital employers put the right precautions in place to
protect their workers before it’s too late.”
For more information visit:
bit.ly/3tJBWpO
8 | sm.britsafe.org
“
Responsible
action is
much more
than simply
providing
sun cream.
Workers used
sledgehammers to break
up ACMs, court hears
Two former company directors have
been fined and given suspended jail
sentences following the demolition of a
department store in Sunderland which
exposed workers to unsafe asbestos.
Workers were put at risk after they
disturbed ‘large quantities’ of asbestos
over several months while working on
the demolition of the former Joplings
Department Store in 2017.
At Newcastle Crown Court it was heard
how the age of the building and previous
refurbishment work meant that there were
‘vast quantities’ of asbestos containing
materials (ACMs) inside the building.
Workers used sledgehammers and
brute force to break up the ACMs. This
caused asbestos fibres to spread across
five floors of the building as well as
outside of the city centre property.
When HSE investigated, 1,315 square
metres of contaminated waste was
found across the shop floors and in
the stairwell.
Former director of Keebar
Construction, Mr Alan Barraclough, was
found guilty of breaching two counts of
section 37 of the Health and Safety at
Work Act 1974.
His colleague, also a former director
at Keebar, Mr James Keegan, was found
guilty of the same offences.
Both men were given 14-month
prison sentences, suspended for two
years, and ordered to carry out 120
hours of unpaid community work. They
have been suspended from working as
a director for 10 years and ordered to
pay costs of £44,774.21.
Speaking after the hearing,
investigating HSE inspector Phil Chester,
said: “Asbestos is responsible for the
premature deaths of over 5,000 people
each year. Younger people, if routinely
exposed to asbestos fibres are, over
time, at greater risk of developing
asbestos-related disease than older
workers. This is due to the time it takes
for the body to develop symptoms after
exposure to asbestos.
“It can take anywhere between 15–60
years for any symptoms to develop after
exposure. Companies need to recognise
the dangers of removing asbestos without
appropriate safety measures, to their
employees and members of the public.”
News
(Left to right) Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP, Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Minister for Mental
Health, Peter McGettrick, British Safety Council chairman, and Wendy Chamberlain MP,
Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Work and Pensions.
BSC NEWS
MPs and peers get
behind Keep Thriving
campaign
The British Safety Council held a parliamentary
reception on 14 June as part of its Keep Thriving
campaign bringing MPs and peers at the House
of Commons together to discuss how we can
ensure workers thrive. The Keep Thriving
campaign seeks to help improve the wellbeing of
workers, within and outside of the workplace.
The event was hosted by Liberal Democrat
Spokesperson for Work and Pensions, Wendy
Chamberlain MP. Wendy said: “Everyone no matter
what they job they do, or what environment they
work in, deserves to thrive in it. Only when thriving,
can people give their best.
“I’m delighted to support the British Safety
Council’s Keep Thriving campaign. Only by ensuring
a continuous focus on workplace wellbeing will
we enable the right conversations to take place in
relation to mental health and tackle the worrying
statistics around productivity and the increasing
numbers of people becoming economically inactive
and exiting the workforce.”
Speaking alongside Wendy was British Safety
Council chairman, Peter McGettrick, who said: “We
all know the consequences of someone being
injured or harmed at work, both to the individual
and their family. Absence through lost productivity
or resource amounts to a cost of £100 billion to the
UK economy each year.”
Four employers who work closely with the British
Safety Council came to talk with parliamentarians
“
The Keep
Thriving
campaign
seeks to help
improve the
wellbeing
of workers,
within and
outside of the
workplace.
about what they are doing to improve their own
workplace wellbeing.
Peter McGettrick said he wanted to “see
employers, government and society valuing and
understanding best practice and wellbeing”. He
said that we must “see leadership, commitment
and accountability for health, safety and wellbeing
from the highest levels within organisations”
and workers “actively involved in developing
their organisations’ integrated health, safety and
wellbeing strategy at a national level”.
Also speaking at the event, Labour’s Shadow
Cabinet Minister for Mental Health, Dr Rosena
Allin-Khan MP, stressed the urgent need to “work
across political divides” on wellbeing. She said:
“Having fantastic initiatives like Keep Thriving tries
to look at creating a uniform way of ensuring that
no one gets left behind. Encouraging workplaces to
sign up to Keep Thriving means that people don’t
fall through the net.”
A key aim of the Keep Thriving is help
organisations learn from each others’ best practice.
Attending the reception were a number of industry
representatives who provided a valuable insight into
what can be achieved with a strong commitment to
worker wellbeing and actively engaged employees.
The House magazine interviewed some of
them and asked what workplace wellbeing meant
to them. Emma Willey, a director at the asbestos
testing and removals company ACS Physical Risk
Control, said that “it is genuinely fundamental to
every single thing I do”.
Recalling her own harrowing experience as
a survivor of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, she
explained how a positive approach to workplace
wellbeing helped her through PTSD from the event.
She also highlighted current efforts at ACS to boost
employer wellbeing, including flexible working and
promoting an environment where everybody knows
they can talk to one another.
Meanwhile, managing director of construction
firm XMO Strata, Steve Martin, explained how his
organisation had worked with employees to develop
an app, whereby any member of staff can have an
anonymous conversation with their employer about
wellbeing related issues. Commenting on the positive
results of the initiative, Martin said “it’s really broken
down the barriers of talking about mental health”.
See more in the House Magazine article:
bit.ly/3zWIghA
Find out more about how you can get
involved and support Keep Thriving:
britsafe.org/keep-thriving
sm.britsafe.org | 9
Awards
Celebrating
success and
achievement
together again
in style
Ben Fogle hosted the International
Safety Awards Gala Dinner.
BSC NEWS
After a two-year break caused by the Covid
pandemic, British Safety Council held its Gala
Dinner on 24 June to celebrate this year’s
International Safety Awards (ISAs), which took
place at the Sheraton Grand Park Lane in London.
The event was hosted by broadcaster and
adventurer Ben Fogle, and included speeches by
British Safety Council’s CEO, Mike Robinson, our
chairman Peter McGettrick, and Emma Willey,
director of asbestos consultants ACS Risk Group,
who spoke on the topic of wellbeing.
The event combined both a formal presentation
ceremony with a dinner and an evening of live
entertainment. Speaking as event host, Ben Fogle
said “I am particularly thrilled to hear that wellbeing
is now being included as part of overall health and
safety strategy. I was unbelievably shy as a child,
and when you fail it strips you of your self-esteem.
I have rebuilt mine through adventures.
“My first was as a participant in one of the first
‘reality’ TV shows, Castaway, over 20 years ago.
10 | sm.britsafe.org
But I felt I wasn’t known for anything, and I wanted
to develop a specific skill. So, for my next challenge
I formed a team with James Cracknell to row
the Atlantic.
“In my latest challenge climbing Mount Everest,
which so many of my journeys have led me to, my idea
of being a ‘sensible dad’ was brought into sharp relief
by the risks and dangers I encountered, including
my oxygen bottle exploding on the expedition.”
This year, 549 organisations of all sizes and
sectors won British Safety Council’s acclaimed ISA
awards, from 647 entries. They came from as far as
Africa, Asia, India, mainland Europe and the Middle
East. 135 applicants achieved a distinction, 204
achieved a merit and 210 achieved a pass.
Only the best of the best wins an overall category
award, and a full list of the winners is set out on the
following pages. Addressing the room of award
entrants and winners, Mike Robinson said: “As always,
the event provides the opportunity to celebrate the
success of all the winners of the International Safety
Awards and associated free to enter awards.
“Celebrating success is really important, not
Awards
Emma Willey, director, ACS Risk Group
“
We are more
successful
when our
people are
happier,
healthier and
more engaged.
only does it give you energy as endorphins are
released into your system, it’s addictive, it creates a
sense of community and empowers others; it also
creates momentum which attracts more success.”
In his address, Peter McGettrick said: “It is
brilliant to see so many organisations here being
positive and proactive about doing the right thing
– putting real thought, care and effort into the
health, safety, and wellbeing of their people – and
being even more successful as a result.
“You are all winners in this room. Why? Because
you understand this fundamental point: we are
more successful when our people are happier,
healthier and more engaged.”
Speaking about her very personal experience of
surviving the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004, and how
that led her to get interested in wellbeing, Emma
Willey said: “My husband and I are survivors of the
2004 boxing day tsunami. We are two of around
60 people to make it out alive from our hotel of 425
people. When we got home, that’s when I really
broke. I was deeply in shock and when I went back
into work, I just couldn’t do it.
“Since that time, I have truly believed in and
practised, wellbeing in the workplace. We’re here
– especially everyone here tonight – because we
care and we want to make the world a better place
than it was yesterday.
“I really invite you to enjoy this evening but on
Monday morning, really take on board what you
experience tonight, look at yourself, look at your
organisation and take advantage of the fabulous
support that’s on offer to truly shift into the next
age of health and safety – from ‘don’t care’ through
‘wait and see’ to ‘risk assess’ and now onwards to
‘total wellbeing’.”
For more information see:
britsafe.org/ISA
E. awards@britsafe.org
sm.britsafe.org | 11
Awards
International Safety Awards
2022 – Category Winners
Free to Enter Awards
Winner
James Cumming
Simple Safety Advice Ltd
During the pandemic, James (pictured) ensured all
his clients had access to reliable Covid test kits
allowing them to remain productive and maintain
business as usual. He also partnered with an HR
company to provide specialist advice on
compassionate staff issues, including health
assessments. He completed site audits and training
remotely to support site managers and ensure
those additional safety procedures were being
adhered to. Some clients requested frequent audits
to ensure new safety measures were consistently
implemented, which James accommodated.
CEO of the Year Award
Highly commended
Mr. Ibrahim Lari
SIBCA
Winner
Nick Millington
Network Rail
Nick (pictured) is the leader of the Network Rail
Safety Task Force. He has led a fundamental change
in the safety of track workers. Nick spearheaded the
elimination of unassisted lookout working when
lookout working was disproportionately risky. In
partnership with track workers and signalling teams,
Nick improved planning methods, track safety
equipment and training while ensuring no risk is
transferred to another area. Nick also championed
the permanent reduction of this form of working as
the railway has a history of elasticity and reverting to
previous ways of working.
Highly commended
Liz Gandara
Collaborative Procurement Partnership
Health, Safety and Wellbeing
Ambassador of the Year Award
Captain Mansoor Khalfan
Al-Mansoori
Dubai Police
12 | sm.britsafe.org
Awards
Health and Safety
Transformation Award
The James Tye Award
Winner
BAE Systems
Sponsored by Croner-i
Winner
NDT Global
NDT Global began transitioning from a
‘Zero Harm’ to a ‘Beyond Zero Harm’
strategy to ensure their focus evolved
beyond zero accident statistics. Through
extensive employee interviews, they
identified that areas such as mental health
and wellbeing, the environment and
positive safety culture were significant
to their people. Adopting a new strategy
dramatically increased their focus on
employee mental health and wellbeing.
Their objective was to raise employee
awareness of the risks, preventative
measures, and resources to support
their mental health and wellbeing.
Wellbeing
Initiative Award
Powered by
Mike Robinson, British Safety Council CEO.
NEW: Seize the
Opportunity Award
Winners:
K-Electric
As Covid-19 entered Pakistan in 2020,
K-Electric’s role became more important
in ensuring continuous power supply
to everyone. KE immediately formed
a Covid-19 Response Committee to
closely monitor the situation and take
quick decisions. Various wellbeing
webinars were launched. Online training
for stress and resilience was also
delivered. Two centres were set up for
company employees and families to
provide free-of-cost vaccination, and
all KE staff were fully vaccinated within
four months. KE also launched a Mobile
Health Vaccination unit fleet to facilitate
access to vaccines in communities
across Karachi and its adjoining areas.
Winner
Collaborative
Procurement Partnership Don Catchment
Rivers Trust
The objective of the Collaborative
Procurement Partnership was to find
innovative and inclusive ways of
supporting the health and wellbeing of
colleagues during the Covid-19
pandemic as they continued to supply
vital products to the NHS. They were
keen to ensure they provided a range of
new and ground-breaking initiatives to
support staff physical, mental health and
wellbeing. The plans were developed for
their staff, by their staff either directly or
through their Employee Consultation
Group. Off the back of initiatives, they
had overwhelmingly positive feedback
from staff and significant improvements
in absences in 2021 compared to 2020.
The lockdown of March 2020 could have
been a crisis for Don Catchment Rivers
Trust. The organisation has a strong
community engagement and volunteering
programme built around encouraging
people to get out, enjoy their natural
heritage and participate in community
events and activities. Yet, the lockdown
meant that the way they worked had to
stop. So, Don Catchment Rivers Trust
changed the way they worked and
re-wrote their engagement plan. All
employees agreed to work towards the
same goal to get through lockdown for
as long as needed and beyond with
support from trustees and funders.
Whilst focusing on critical safety
controls and lifesaving rules, BAE
Systems found a greater need to
engage with its workforce quickly and
easily, especially employees without
regular computer access. Safety in 60 is
BAE Systems solution for allowing
critical safety information to be available
to employees, customers, contractors
and visitors in bite-size chunks and
using QR technology to make the
information more accessible. This
simple solution was to take multi-page
complex procedures, summarise them
into 60-second videos, and make them
available at the point of work.
Team of the Year Award
Winner
Khon Kaen Road
(Thailand) Safety
Warriors
Khon Kaen Road Safety Warriors, is a road
accident reduction community, that aims
to reduce road accidents in dangerous
areas in Khon Kaen. It is made up of a
collaboration between organisations of 3E
principle: Education, Traffic Engineering,
and Law Enforcement. All organisations
are volunteers with no compensation.
The key focus was to embrace
technology to reduce road accidents
as well as improve law enforcement
efficiency. The results show the number
of road accidents has been reduced
significantly. It also showed the impact
of community collaboration.
Peter McGettrick, British Safety Council chair.
sm.britsafe.org | 13
Awards
Best in Country Award
China
The Second Construction Limited Company of
China Construction Eighth Engineering Division
East Africa
Larsen & Toubro Mauritius Metro Express Project
Egypt
China State Construction Engineering Corporation Ltd
India (joint winners)
Eon Hinjewadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
ICC Realty India Pvt. Ltd
Eon Kharadi Infrastructure Private Ltd
Kuwait
Kuwait National Petroleum Company – Projects
Department
Pakistan
Engro Fertilizers Daharki
Best in Sector Award
Qatar
Wilson James Ltd – Tate Galleries
ASHGHAL – KEO International Consultants – HBK
Contracting Company – Roads & Infrastructure in
Umm Slal Mohammed Phase 02 (DN005-P01)
Construction and Property Activities
Saudi Arabia
EMCOR UK
WSP Middle East – DGDA Bujairi Car Park Project
Education
Singapore
Khalifa University
Or Kim Peow Contractor (Pte) Ltd: ER443Walk2Ride
Art and Culture – Museums, Galleries
Financial, IT, Legal, Scientific and
Technical Services and Media
Eversheds LLP
Health and Social Care
Lifeways
Leisure, Sports Clubs, Hospitality
and Catering
Elior UK
Local Government, Defence and
Public Service
“
This year, 549
organisations
of all sizes and
sectors won
British Safety
Council’s
acclaimed
International
Safety Award.
South, West & Central Africa
INDORAMA ELEME PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
– PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA
Turkey
ASELSAN
United Kingdom (joint winners)
EMCOR UK
UNIPART GROUP LTD
UAE
Dubai Duty Free
BAE Systems Naval Ships
Chief Adjudicator’s Award
Manufacturing
Nobia UK – Darlington
EMCOR UK
Emballator Packaging Ltd
The EMCOR UK provides customer-centric solutions
through workplace transformation, integrated
facilities management, project solutions, data-led
asset management services and carbon reduction.
They have a track record of success in some of the
most complex and regulated workplaces in the UK
– delivering services to industry sectors including
life sciences, defence, nuclear, hi-tech
manufacturing and central government. EMCOR UK
ISA application achieved the highest score of all the
549 ISA submissions made in 2021.
Power and Utilities
Kuwait National Petroleum Company – Projects
Department
Transport, Distribution and Storage
Wilson James Ltd
Wholesale and Retail Services
Nippon Gases UK Ltd
14 | sm.britsafe.org
Helps you build a healthy, profitable, and
sustainable future for your company.
Sign up now:
www.beingwelltogether.org
support@beingwelltogether.org
T. +44 (0)20 8600 1054
• Flexible health, safety and wellbeing
solutions tailored to your needs
• Unique tools to benchmark your organisation
• Access to industry leading HR, health,
safety and wellbeing tools
• Advice and support from industry experts
to help you every step of the way.
BT201
The first truly
joined-up
approach to
employee
health, safety
and wellbeing
for SMEs
Case study
PiLON: Putting our people first
The committee is chaired by Joanne, who was
appointed in the same year, and has volunteers from
five other departments plus three senior managers.
The committee meets regularly to plan campaigns
and discuss initiatives and ideas; they also take an
active role, along with the company’s mental health
first aiders, in monitoring employee wellbeing.
Wellbeing is a vast area, so they decided to
approach it by focusing on two things, says Joanne.
“The first, has been to provide the right support. We
do this via our employee assistance programme,
wellbeing website, mental health first aiders, posters
with QR codes leading directly to support resources,
and many other initiatives focusing on different
aspects of wellbeing throughout the year.”
The second, she says is awareness and
education, specifically around mental health where
there may have been stigma and misconception.
“A lot of what we do is aimed at raising awareness
and keeping conversations around stress, mental
health and wellbeing going so that we create
a culture without stigma where people feel
comfortable and supported enough to ask for help.”
Belinda Liversedge
PiLON recently became a
10-time International Safety
Award winner in the distinction
category in the 2022 awards.
It follows the social housing
contractor’s win for best
wellbeing initiative in the
awards in 2021.
afety Management caught up with two
of its core team, Sid Clark, PiLON’s SHEQ
manager and Joanne de Sousa, who leads
the company’s work on wellbeing, to find out
about continuing momentum after launching its
successful wellbeing strategy.
S
Committee at the heart of wellbeing
Mental health has been a core focus of PiLON’s
since January 2020, following a speech at a
conference where the horrifying statistics on
suicide in the construction sector were highlighted.
“Our employees became more aware and
interested in wellbeing following our first campaign
[which won the ISA] and since we established our
Wellbeing Committee,” says Sid.
16 | sm.britsafe.org
Sid Clark delivers a
toolbox talk to staff.
Communication is key
Making the strategy work at all levels has required
a combination of organisation and empathy.
Communications are a vital part of the plan. In the
ISA award for 2022, Sid highlighted how for the
project submitted, regular one-to-one meetings
with each staff member were held with the
Case study
Contracts Manager to facilitate a discussion covering
any concerns they might have. PiLON then used
trend analysis to understand any concerns that
were frequently or more commonly cropping up and
discussed these at weekly senior management
meetings to find solutions. The project was for Optivo
Homes in London where a team of 30 operatives
were demolishing and refurbishing kitchens and
bathrooms, and deadlines came up as a source
of work-related stress. “We recognised that client
deadlines and KPIs, led to some staff members
feeling under pressure and concerned about working
hours,” says Sid. “To mitigate these concerns, we
implemented a staggered work programme to allow
for a more relaxed approach to presence on site.”
One step at a time
Health promotion is good for engagement as well
as being an important means of sharing advice
and urging workers to prioritise work–life balance.
The committee meets regularly to plan and discuss
initiatives based on wellbeing days such as stress
awareness month, gets feedback from these and
regularly asks its people what they would like to
see next. A wellbeing section in the company
newsletter highlights campaigns.
A wellbeing day in late April included posture
assessments, health assessments and a healthy
lunch. Joanne says: “We arranged several talks
from experts on subjects such as nutrition. The
feedback was overwhelmingly positive. It even
kick started our internal step challenge which
currently has 34 employees and is growing fast.”
Mental health and stress
On the more serious end of the spectrum, stress is
a priority to tackle because it’s also a risk to safety,
not just to the worker but others around them.
“Mistakes can happen when people are unable to
focus, and when working on a construction site, it
is very important that we are able to pick up on this
and provide the right support,” says Joanne.
Fifteen percent of staff are trained in mental
health first aid to spot if someone is struggling and
then know which words to use to support or point
them in the direction of help. “If we can spot when
a colleague [is unwell], we are more likely to
prevent accidents from happening.”
Speaking more openly about burnout,
substance abuse, anxiety, or other mental health
issues has also helped create a culture of
openness where employees feel able to ask for
help. “We have been talking and raising awareness
of the symptoms for quite a while now, and staff
members are coming forward to tell us when this is
something they are experiencing.
While it isn’t always work-related, we assess the
individual’s current workload, listen to understand
their situation, discuss the support available to
them and take action accordingly,” says Joanne.
“
Candidates
have said that
one of the
things that
attracted them
to work for
PiLON, was
our stance
on employee
wellbeing.
On the right track?
Measuring the impact of any wellbeing programme
is tricky because our wellbeing and mental health
are fluid states, says Joanne. But attendance at
events, feedback, and usage of support resources
like PiLON’s wellbeing website are all measured.
Most useful is often written feedback. The word
‘supportive’ coming up 43 times in a recent survey,
equating to over 75 per cent of respondents.
It’s been important that senior managers give
credibility to the work by taking part in it – the step
challenges, awareness days – as well as giving
financial backing to the committee’s work.
Joanne says that the kickback from the
investment is improved retention and recruitment.
“It has actually been mentioned by candidates that
one of the things that attracted them to work for
PiLON, was our stance on employee wellbeing and
campaigns to improve mental health in the sector.”
What plans are there for the coming year? It’s
all about building on progress made, with ‘people’
the foundation. “Even if we ignored the fact that it
is the right thing to do, putting employee wellbeing
at the forefront of any business will reduce
absenteeism, improve staff performance, support
employee retention and attract new talent into the
business,” summarises Joanne.
But more immediately, the team are looking
forward to celebrating their ISA, says Sid. “This is
very important to us, we have won this award for
the past ten years and it requires input from not just
the safety team, but from the entire team on site.”
He adds: “We are looking forward to celebrating
the hard work that goes into ensuring our people
are safe each day. We have missed many events
due to Covid restrictions and are very much looking
forward to seeing other industry professionals
once again in person.”
Joanne de Sousa
and Sid Clark
sm.britsafe.org | 17
Comment
A new Clean Air Act
is needed to protect
people from air pollution
T
Ruth Jones MP
Welsh Labour Member of
Parliament for Newport West
Shadow Minister for Air Quality
18 | sm.britsafe.org
here are many responsibilities
on government and on
Parliamentarians and one of
the most important, if not the most
important, is to protect the environment
and preserve our world. That’s why
Labour declared a climate emergency
and that’s why we want Tory ministers
to act and act now.
A key element of preserving our
environment is clean air. It is vital we
remember that our ecosystems are
damaged by toxic air and air pollution,
as are our waterways and the natural
habitats of our wildlife. In light of last
month’s Clean Air Day, and as the Shadow
Minister for Air Quality, I want to reaffirm
Labour’s commitment to acting now.
One of the earliest actions of the next
Labour Government in Westminster will
be to introduce a Clean Air Act to protect
people of all ages all across the country.
Clean Air Day is the UK’s largest air
pollution campaign. It engages people
in all parts of the UK and reaches
millions more through the media. To all
those who marked this important day
through awareness-raising campaigns
and activities, thank you.
The need to improve air quality and
prevent the release of harmful air
pollutants forms a key focus of my role
as Shadow Minister. My view is simple:
we need real action. That is why the
Shadow DEFRA (Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs)
Team, led by our Shadow Secretary of
State, Jim McMahon, is focused on
holding this government to account.
And we are doing so because Tory
Comment
ministers have neither any real ambition
nor the energy required to deliver the
bold, history-making, planet-saving
agenda we need to make progress.
Last year, I noted in Parliament of the
fact that 60 per cent of people in
England are now living in areas where
levels of toxic air pollution exceeded
legal limits in the previous year. We
cannot go on as we are, and that
requires real leadership. Ministers need
to realise that public concern is growing
– over three quarters (77.4 per cent) of
people with asthma and almost half
(42.3 per cent) of those living with COPD
(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
say that air pollution has an impact on
their health and wellbeing.
And recent Asthma + Lung UK
research shows that you are twice as
likely to have a lung condition and seven
times more likely to die from one living in
the most deprived neighbourhood than
in the least deprived.
The Environment Bill should have kick
started our efforts to – finally – tackle our
toxic air. Disappointingly for many in the
sector, and out in the country, the Bill will
do nothing to stop the UK falling behind
on the environment. In recent months and
years, we have seen fires rage across
Australia, the United States and in the
Amazon; while at the same time glaciers
continue to melt away in Antarctica.
The government’s air quality plans
have been ruled unlawful multiple times.
Despite all this, the government avoided
writing enforceable targets into the
Environment Act that would have brought
air pollution below the harmful levels set
by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Indeed, the current targets, as proposed,
aren’t fit for purpose. Why? Well as
things stand, we will reach the 2005
WHO targets by 2040!
Photograph: iStock/Stefan_Redel
No ambition, no urgency and no
determination to get things done!
As the Greener Alliance, who do brilliant
work, noted, many existing air pollution
targets expire in 2030, so it is vital to seize
the opportunity now to set new limits,
exposure reduction targets and emissions
targets for all harmful pollutants.
Much environment policy is devolved
to the nations of the United Kingdom
and there is much that Tory ministers in
Westminster can learn. Take the Welsh
Labour Government in Cardiff Bay,
where in August 2020, Wales’s
Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths
MS, launched the Welsh Government’s
‘Clean Air Plan for Wales’ – Healthy Air,
Healthy Wales.
The Welsh Labour plan recognises
that the coronavirus pandemic saw a
big change in people’s behaviour and
lifestyle habits, and we saw how that
led to cleaner air and a healthier
environment. We all know that air
pollution is a public health crisis. Last
year, Asthma + Lung UK found that
nearly two million people noticed an
improvement to their symptoms, likely
due to better air quality during lockdown.
Welsh ministers recognise that we
must learn from the changes in
behaviour and how we can design those
changes into tackling toxic air levels
going forward. The plan has a big focus
on tackling air pollutants from many
sources, including reducing emissions
from industry, agriculture and heating
our homes.
I want UK ministers to reach out and
engage with ministerial colleagues in
the devolved governments because we
need a coherent focus across all four
nations if we are going to deliver the real
change our planet requires.
Before I was elected to Parliament,
I spent more than 30 years working
in the National Health Service as a
physiotherapist. I saw every day the
damage that toxic air can cause to the
lungs, health and mobility of people
of all ages and from all communities;
including those whose lungs are
damaged while still in the womb and
those suffering from asthma, COPD
and other serious lung conditions.
The task of making our air cleaner
starts with each of us and that is why
government must give councils real –
and tangible – support to tackle toxic
air. Our children and young people are
key – because they are the reason we
must act; it is their futures we are
putting at risk. And that is why we must
recognise that educating all our people
is our way out of this crisis.
Follow Ruth Jones MP at:
ruthjones.wales
@RuthNewportWest
More on the UK’s Clean air Day:
actionforcleanair.org.uk
@cleanairdayuk
sm.britsafe.org | 19
Feature
Photograph:
iStock/Luan Mazieri
High
Hopes
20 | sm.britsafe.org
Feature
Can post-Grenfell
regulations turn the
tide on building safety?
Belinda Liversedge
“
The task is
huge. It’s not
locking the
stable door, it’s
trying to round
up a herd of
horses and get
them back
in again.
I
t’s a beautiful day in June and fire
safety professional, Russ Timpson
should be on holiday, but he’s
talking to me. This is because it’s
also five years today, on 14 June,
since the Grenfell fire exposed
severe systemic failings and the
industry has a lot to get done. The
Building Safety Bill which received
Royal Assent on 28 April will come
into force in a year to 18 months.
“Every stakeholder from
architects, building control, the fire
service – they’ve all been found
wanting and we have to make
significant changes,” says Timpson,
who is founder and organiser of the
Tall Building Fire Safety Network.
Safety Management wants to
understand how the industry is
meeting and preparing for its new
responsibilities. As we remember
Grenfell, are we confident the
system which so catastrophically
let residents down that night is
improving and that it will save lives?
The challenge
It’s important to realise the problems
that led to Grenfell – still being
revealed as part of the Inquiry – are
not unique to that event but are
widespread across the building
system. When Dame Judith Hackitt
reflected on the findings of her
independent review into building and
fire safety regulations, Building a Safer
Future, published in May 2018, she
said: “I have been shocked by some
of the practices I have heard about.”
She spoke of confusion about the
roles and responsibilities at each
stage, regulations undermined by
hard-to-follow and excessive
guidance: a “whole series of guidance
documents which stacked on top of
one another would be about 2ft high”.
Beyond this, she found a system
driven by profit not safety, creating
a rotten culture of risk-taking. Hackitt
said: “A cultural and behavioural
change is now required across the
whole [construction] sector to deliver
an effective system that ensures
complex buildings are built and
maintained so that they are safe for
people to live in for many years after
the original construction.”
Designing in safety
The Building Safety Act seeks to
restore a safety-first culture by
designing in safety from the start
and then monitoring it at every stage.
Tim Galloway, HSE’s deputy director
of building safety spoke at the recent
Firex conference of a “system of
integrated parts: the design,
maintenance, risk assessment
process, ongoing improvements and
engagement with residents need to
be considered by one accountable
person, the building owner with new
duties required from others.”
The Building Safety Regulator
(BSR), which the Act has established
and will be embedded within HSE, will
oversee the safety and standards of all
high-rise residential buildings, that is,
buildings over 18 metres tall, or over
seven storeys high. Hospitals and care
homes will also come into its scope.
New projects must submit evidence
for the BSR’s scrutiny at three ‘project
gateway’ hard stops at planning,
pre-construction and pre-handover.
Gateway 1, now up and running,
requires the developer to show how
sm.britsafe.org | 21
Feature
Photograph: iStock/kelvinjay
safety considerations have been
incorporated into design proposals.
In many ways this reinstates a lot of
the aspiration and hopes that
surrounded high-rise social housing
in the early days of the ’60s and ’70s.
Paul Dockerill, director of energy &
programme management at whg, a
social housing provider in Walsall, who
has worked with the government’s
steering group on building safety,
started out as a builder 30 years ago.
He recalls: “The traditional approach
was for the architect to work for the
client to design everything and liaise
with the fire service or building control,
before procuring a contractor. As
we’ve moved to a design and build
approach, design teams work for
the contractor – in many cases this
approach has not worked.” When
post-war architects were building
high-rise flats to replace sub-standard
Victorian housing, they had safety
and resident wellbeing firmly in mind.
“In the old days, the standards were
so high. And that’s why we’ve got so
many wonderful buildings. I think
now [with the Building Safety Act]
we’ve come round in a circle. I think
it will bring back the high standards
we need today.”
Slow progress
It’s been nearly one year since
Gateway 1 has been in operation.
Since August 2021, BSR has received
over 1,000 planning applications.
According to Galloway, half of them
have failed to pass muster, including
a quarter which have given rise to
‘serious concern’. Galloway says: “It
begs the question whether people
know the standards they should be
working to or whether they [just
22 | sm.britsafe.org
don’t] have the competence in
design. Maybe organisations know
the standards, but don’t apply them.”
There is serious concern that the
industry isn’t getting to grips with its
new responsibilities. In a progress
report on building safety filed earlier
this year, Hackitt said that: “We still
see an industry that, at best, is in
compliance mode rather than a
leadership mode.”
But there is hope that these
leaders are influencing the culture, by
sharing their best practice examples.
Dockerill chairs the NHF Building
Safety National Group, which was
formed to report and work with the
government on progress made
towards achieving culture change in
the built environment industry. He tells
me about an innovative project they
have developed to meet the ‘safety
case’ part of Building Act’s new duties.
The role of the safety case
The safety case is like a blueprint f
or everything to do with fire risk
management and is meant to be
added to throughout the building’s
lifetime, reflecting for example,
information relating to maintenance
and refurbishment. Dockerill and his
team decided that a paper safety
case would not be usable enough:
“We did some early work around
what does technology look like? Is it
loads of folders and a cabinet with all
the information in? No.” They settled
on digital twin technology called
TwinnedIt which took two years of
research and development to produce.
It visualises in a 3D model the
building’s safety and fire risk
information via an interactive app. The
main point of it is that it’s quick and
accessible. “When you read the story
of the way the fire had to be tackled
at Grenfell you can appreciate why
the fire service had many challenges
to consider. When they turned up
they had no information on the
cladding material or how it would
perform in the event of a fire,” says
Dockerill. “So they had a very unfair
chance of trying to save lives.” The
app can be used by the fire services
on their way to a building: “They are
making decisions already [en route]
and thinking, right? What have we
got? Minutes are all lost because of
[not having] that information.”
whg’s approach to the Building
Safety Case should be signed off by
the BSR in July and then Dockerill
wants to collaborate with as many
other social housing providers as
possible to share it. “We’re not saying
this is the solution. We’re just saying
this is the progress we’re making and
if that helps you, it helps everyone.”
Dockerill does echo Hackitt’s
concerns though, that not all
organisations are yet prepared to
invest time and money into fire safety.
“It is unclear how many aren’t
making progress and the reasons
they are not. Is it finance, resource,
decision process or a lack of clarity in
what to do? We need to understand
this clearly. If you’re the landlord
you’re accountable, nobody else.”
Guidance is needed
Steffan Groch, partner regulatory,
compliance and investigations at
DWF Law LLP, says that more
guidance from government is
needed. “I think there is an air of
frustration amongst the construction
industry that more is not being done
to support them in introducing and
understanding the changes.” He
thinks that the Act’s long
implementation period means that
“developers are sleep walking
towards [the changes] and not being
given the right messaging about
what they need to do to comply”.
A competency gap
It hasn’t helped that since enacting the
Building Safety Bill some of the key
points in it that had excited the industry
have been removed. The major one
for the industry, is the scrapping of
Feature
the requirement for the accountable
person (the landlord, who could be
an individual or corporate body) to
appoint a building safety manager for
each higher-risk building to undertake
the many new legal duties, including
maintaining the fire safety cases.
Timpson tells me he had been
gearing the industry up to appoint
BSMs for the past 18 months: “I’ve
been saying, ‘great we’re making a
huge step forward’, we’re following
the example of other countries for
tall buildings, in that they have
dedicated person to focus on fire
and building safety.” It would have
helped plug a hole, he says, because
it would have insisted on recruiting
people with expertise and
competence in fire safety, a key
problem that led to some of the
lethal decisions that were made and
approved in Grenfell. “There’s a huge
competency gap in the market for
fire safety managers. We’ve got
people running buildings out there
who in my opinion are wholly
incompetent to do it,” says Timpson.
Without a legal requirement for the
role, the tasks of the BSM are likely
to be spread around people in a
department, or will be given to safety
managers to do. It’s concerning
because in Grenfell, it was revealed
that the building control manager was
unable to do his job properly because
of cuts to his team. He told the Inquiry
he was working on up to 130 jobs at
one time. Dockerill says: “I think we
have to be careful – there may be
models where you can share those
responsibilities without the Building
Safety Manager, but I think you do
need that overall accountable person
for the building that brings all things,
all responsibilities together.” At whg
they have pressed on ahead and
hired two full time BSMs.
Resistance to change?
The Act isn’t the full picture –
secondary legislation is being
developed to support it. In May, the
Home Office said it has decided it is
not ‘proportionate or practical’ to
require the building owner to develop
personal fire evacuation plans for
disabled people. Watering down of
requirements at this early stage is
sending the wrong message to the
industry, says Dockerill. “The sector
isn’t clear about what it has to do and
what it needs to do. There is the
danger that we will revert back to what
we were doing before, whereas what
we should be seeing is a complete
culture change where resident safety
is embedded in everything we do.”
On the positive, Timpson says
health and safety professionals, often
the Cinderellas of the business, have
more leverage for investment into
their work and the ear of the board.
“Normal health and safety risks don’t
get that high on the risk register
generally [the register of material risks
to the business which companies are
legally required to identify, monitor
and manage]. But if your prestigious
residential development burns to the
ground then that probably will. You
may go out of business. My logic is
that the safety manager with the fire
safety brief is the custodian of one of
the main corporate risks in the
business.” Safety managers who can
underline that fire is a top risk on the
commercial risk register will have a
‘compelling message’ for boards.
Tim Galloway, BSR’s deputy director of building safety, speaking at Firex.
Role of the BSR
The BSR will enforce standards.
By 2024, it will call in buildings for
assessment and issue building
certificates as part of Gateways 2
and 3. New legislation could result in
prosecution and criminal sanctions
if an adequate ‘safety case’ is
not submitted, or improvement
notices are ignored. Timpson says:
“I sincerely hope the [BSR] will be
effective and bring real change.
But let’s wait and see.” In a political
climate of cutting health and safety
regulations to ‘help’ business, we
don’t know how much funding will
be allocated to the new regulator.
“The [BSR] has a huge task on its
hands – it’s not locking the stable
door it’s trying to round up a whole
herd of horses and get them back in
again. It’s going to take some money,
some cost and there’s going to be
massive push back.”
It’s easy to feel that the weight of
the Act, like a judge’s gavel, has put a
close to the matter for building safety
and that we now have the solutions.
But speaking to these voices in the
thick of things in the high-rise
building sector, we realise that the
new regime is only getting started.
One final question and the only
real one to ask on the anniversary day
of Grenfell: will we prevent another
tragedy? Powerful forces of profit are
hard to quench, but there are signs
things are changing. Plans for a
51-storey London tower were put on
hold earlier this year after distressed
constituents and fire safety
professionals branded the project
“madness”. It featured a single
staircase, a factor that in Grenfell
made it hard for people to evacuate
safely. “At Firex, international
delegates were shocked that we
allow single staircases in Britain,” says
Timpson. But since the project was
pulled a “number of developers are
starting to reflect”.
If the industry can get behind
the changes in the Act, then there’s
no reason why high rises can’t be
safe and happy communities once
more. As Dockerill says: “High rises
are not the issue – it’s what we’ve
done to the buildings since they
were constructed.”
sm.britsafe.org | 23
Comment
Fire safety design
standards for
tall residential
buildings: room
for improvement
T
Mark Wilson
Operational Lead for Policy
and Planning Gateway One
HSE
24 | sm.britsafe.org
he Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) began its work as statutory
consultee for planning applications
that include a high-rise residential building
in England, in August 2021. Since then, our
Planning Gateway One (PGO) team, which
includes fire safety information assessors,
has been reviewing development
proposals and providing responses and
comments about fire safety to local
planning authorities, to inform their
decisions on planning applications.
Tackling poor design for tall residential
buildings right from the outset of a
project’s life is a direct response to Dame
Judith Hackitt’s recommendations in her
Building a Safer Future – Independent
Review of Building Regulations and Fire
Safety report (May 2018). By amending
existing planning legislation, PGO was
able to be introduced as one of the first
regulatory measures of the new building
safety regime in England ahead of the
Building Safety Act, 2022.
In her report, Dame Judith
commented that the system of building
regulations and fire safety was “not fit
for purpose” and culture change was
required to support the delivery of safe
buildings. One of the recommendations
was that fire safety design in high-rise
residential buildings should be
considered earlier, at the planning stage,
so that poor design is not ‘baked in’,
before the development reaches the
building regulations stage.
Comment
Photograph: iStock/Explora_2005
Concerns raised over planning
applications
Our experience of assessing planning
applications reflects the concerns
expressed by Dame Judith. Since the
PGO service began we have received
over 1,000 consultation requests from
local planning authorities and have raised
concerns in over 50 per cent of our
responses. Feedback from local planning
authorities is that they are supportive of
what we’re doing. They are rightly
concerned about granting planning
permission for developments that we
have identified as unsafe and are very
reluctant to provide consent where fire
safety concerns have been raised.
Common practice among some
developers is that little or no
consideration of fire safety is given at the
planning stage and planners do not have
the knowledge and expertise to be able
to spot and tackle poor fire safety
design. A building’s design in terms of its
form and layout are largely fixed once
planning permission is gained. This often
means that complex and costly fire
engineered solutions are then required
later to overcome these fire safety design
problems. Approaching design in this
way is at best sub-optimal and in some
cases does not provide a satisfactory
standard of fire safety. These problems
affect new developments as well as
refurbishments and changes of use of
existing buildings.
While the debate around fire safety in
tall residential buildings since the Grenfell
tragedy has largely focused on cladding,
the design issues we are identifying in
our role as the statutory consultee go
wider than that, which has unsettled
some in the development industry.
Feedback from some developers is they
expected Planning Gateway One to be
focused only on cladding and parking
spots for fire appliances.
Fire risks from single staircases
However, as well as commenting on
issues including smoke vents and
external wall openings close to
neighbouring properties and restricted or
non-existent access for fire appliances,
PGO comments also raise concerns on
single staircases in tall residential
buildings, where they represent the only
means of escape for residents on upper
storeys and the only access for
firefighters. These can easily be made
vulnerable where they connect with
higher fire risk areas, such as covered
car parks or waste storage facilities. If a
fire breaks out in a bin store, a covered
car park or basement area which is
served by a single staircase, firefighters
will need to use that staircase to access
it. They may then need to wedge open
any doors with hoses, potentially
exposing the only means of escape for
residents to heat, smoke, steam and fire.
Relying on a single staircase inevitably
means design compromises related to
the convenience of connecting
basements and ancillary uses to the
single staircase.
Single staircases in tall buildings also
pose risks for firefighter safety. Fewer
access options for firefighters can lead
to excessive travel distances (the
distance between the door to the
escape stair and the furthest flat). We
are routinely raising this as a concern.
Research, which is reflected in
guidance, states that the maximum
distance a firefighter can safely be
expected to travel to get to a fire in a
building is 30 metres. We regularly find
that the designs we see with single
staircases, often mean that this
maximum distance is not achievable.
Bear in mind we are expecting
firefighters carrying heavy equipment
and wearing bulky gear to potentially
travel through dangerously hot and
smoke-bound corridors wearing
breathing apparatus, after potentially
climbing stairs. Some of our assessors
are ex-firefighters and are keenly aware
of what that feels like and the effect on
a firefighter’s physiology.
We should point out that single
staircases are permitted by fire
standards, and they are often favoured
by developers as more space can be
given over to the residential and
commercial areas of the building.
However, if developers want to design
tall buildings with a single staircase, we
will require them to demonstrate that the
staircase and escape routes are properly
protected. Where fire engineered
designs are proposed as an alternative
to compliance with fire standards, we
will expect them to be supported by
evidence in the planning application.
HSE advice on fire safety design
Developers can use our pre-application
service for advice on fire safety design.
sm.britsafe.org | 25
Comment
This can help them resolve issues before submitting
their planning applications, and they are increasingly
amending their plans based on our feedback.
For example, by adding additional firefighting
shafts, moving fire mains, improving fire appliance
accessibility, removing firefighter hazards, and
changing designs to protect escape routes and
prevent fire spread to other buildings. These
successes demonstrate that the PGO process is
already raising design standards which ultimately
will result in safer buildings.
We are using feedback from industry and others
to refine the service and to get the message out to
the development industry that they must do
something different. We will also continue to share
examples of best practice with industry to help them
consider fire safety needs in planning applications.
Ultimately, however, a change in how the
development industry works and thinks is required.
This includes developers, architects, fire engineers,
building inspectors and any other professions
involved in the design, build and consenting
process for high-rise residential buildings.
In particular, architects and fire engineers need
to work together to apply proper fire safety design
standards at the earliest point. RIBA already reflect
this way of working in their ‘Plan of Work’ which sets
out a staged approach to designing and developing
a building. The third stage in the process is ‘Spatial
Co-ordination’, at the end of which the planning
application is submitted. Under this stage RIBA state
that the design should be reviewed against building
regulations (including fire standards) before the
planning application is submitted.
26 | sm.britsafe.org
“
Architects
DQGƣUH
engineers
need to work
together to
apply proper
ƣUHVDIHW\
design
standards at
the earliest
point.
There is no doubt this kind of approach would
reduce consenting risks, save time, and reduce
costs later. If the ‘big ticket’ design features such as
the number and location of staircases, and how they
interact with other uses in the building are designed
in properly from the start, then subsequent
regulatory stages should be less onerous.
Planning Gateway One is part of the new Building
Safety Regulator (BSR) which is being set up within
HSE. The BSR will become the Building Control Body
for higher-risk buildings from October 2023.
Therefore, if the issues that are being raised
by HSE at the planning stage are left unresolved,
they will eventually be considered and dealt with
by BSR at the building regulations application stage
or at the point where BSR certifies the building
can be occupied.
Planning Gateway One is providing a foretaste
to the development industry about what a more
stringent regime will look and feel like. The
message to industry is clear: understand the new
fire safety design landscape and respond positively
to these regulatory changes. Only by doing this can
industry restore confidence in their developments
to residents, firefighters, regulators and the public.
This is all the more important as we see the
skylines of our cities and large towns prickling
with tower cranes, building ever taller towers.
To keep-up-to-date with the latest news
and developments from the new Building
Safety Regulator sign-up to HSE’s free
building safety newsletter:
bit.ly/3OIFjpb
Members – seize
the opportunity
Your exclusive
benefits
Login to your account to access your
exclusive support package, including:
• 24/7 advice and support line for help
when you need it most
• Safety Management magazine to keep
you informed with industry news
• Regular e-alerts to keep you up to date
on best practice and stay abreast of the
latest sector developments
• Sector Interest Groups to connect
you with other leads in your field
• Access to new ‘back to work’ support,
including a member discount on our
COVID-19 Assurance Assessment service.
MM204
Not a member?
Sign up now at:
www.britsafe.org/membershipnow
Feature
UK fire and building
safety laws and standards:
more action needed
In response to the Grenfell Tower
fire of 2017, the Fire Safety Act 2021
was passed by UK Parliament,
amending the Regulatory Reform
Order (Fire Safety Order) 2005 to
improve fire safety in English and
Welsh residential buildings.
Photograph: iStock/A stockphoto
T
Jonathan O’Neill MBE
Managing director
The Fire Protection
Association (FPA)
28 | sm.britsafe.org
he Fire Safety Order has been
criticised as being reactive rather
than proactive, with changes in
fire safety law inevitably following each
tragedy. However, there are a number of
positive changes in the Act, such as fire
risk assessments for buildings with two
or more sets of domestic premises now
required to cover the entire building,
including the exterior. Grenfell is a clear
reminder of what can happen if a risk
assessment doesn’t take a holistic view
of the entire building.
However, a notable exclusion from
the act is the lack of consideration for
third-party accreditation of fire risk
assessments. There is a perceived
hesitancy to legislate for competency at
this level, as under current rules, anyone
can begin work as a fire risk assessor.
The Fire Protection Association (FPA)
has long advocated accreditation for fire
risk assessors and has gone so far as to
lobby government to include third-party
assessments as a statutory defence in
law. This would ensure the protection
of all involved parties in the event of an
incident, and lead to assessors being
expected to be up-to-date on all
developments in legislation and best
practice. For comparison, the Gas Safe
scheme, which is itself third-party
accredited, mandates that gas work
undertaken in a commercial or
residential premises must be done by
an individual accredited by the scheme.
Review of UK building regulations
is essential
In line with this, the FPA is also calling for
a full and thorough review of UK building
regulations. It has currently been over
a decade since the last review, and we
are faced with a rapidly changing
landscape, including more combustible
Feature
building materials. In itself, this change of material
is not necessarily a cause for concern, as it has
been implemented in various countries already,
and serves the drive to a model of construction
with greater sustainability. But as this becomes
more common, the already outdated regulations
could slip ever further behind.
The iterative approach to legislation, plus
involvement from fire and rescue service and
sector bodies, has reduced the average number of
fire-related fatalities in the UK per year by around
75 per cent in the past 30 years. Part of this
progress was due to the involvement of the
Inspectorate of Fire, who would investigate fires of
note, and make recommendations to amend the
building regulations as a result. Sadly the new
Inspectorate does not have that remit or expertise.
Their involvement in the past should not be
underestimated. There are still ongoing problems
to be addressed, often with devastating
consequences. The Grenfell disaster itself
highlighted several flaws in building regulations and
a lack of competent fire assessments. While
legislation operates in a reactive mode, it can never
be assumed that fire is no longer a problem.
Following Grenfell, we saw the introduction of the
Building Safety Act, which aims to reform the safety
system for residential properties by appointing a
Building Safety Regulator, giving a greater voice to
residents, driving industry change, and creating a
national framework for increased oversight.
While its focus on high-rise buildings inherently
limits its scope, it has widely been seen as a step in
the right direction by much of the industry. And
while that step change may have been the right
course in the wake of Grenfell five years ago,
construction has ceaselessly continued to
modernise since then, and there is a need for a
different set of regulations to match this pace, with
regular review and oversight.
These developments have run in parallel to the
UK’s recent building safety scandal, which has in
recent months seen Secretary of State for Levelling
Up, Michael Gove, announce a fund of £5 billion to
address the swathe of outstanding fire remediation
works, much of which has seen leaseholders
charged with eye-watering bills and left them
unable to sell their affected properties.
Over 35 of the UK’s biggest construction
companies have so far pledged to fix all buildings
taller than 11 metres that they were involved in
the construction of over the last 30 years. This
agreement is set to become legally enforceable
in the near future.
This has widely been seen as a great victory
for the affected leaseholders, following months
of grassroots campaigning, calling for the
construction companies themselves to be held
accountable instead of passing the bill on, which
has seen some leaseholders served higher service
charges than the value of their properties.
It is now for the government to ensure that this
money is promptly paid, and that the levy to raise
these funds from the industry is enforced, yet
many have little faith that this will happen. Perhaps
a more effective step would be for the government
to fund and undertake these necessary
remediations immediately, and then to recoup the
money from the responsible parties, something
the FPA has been calling for in the past three years.
The evidence provided to date during the
Grenfell Tower Inquiry shows that leaseholders have
purchased what were unsafe properties that did not
comply with regulations. And because building
regulations are the responsibility of the government,
the public view is quite correctly, largely one that
sees them as needing to step up to the task of fixing
this on behalf of the affected leaseholders.
“
The
Grenfell
disaster
highlighted
VHYHUDOƤDZV
in building
regulations
and a lack of
FRPSHWHQWƣUH
assessments.
Unified building codes required across the UK
The FPA has also long been in favour of a set of
unified building codes, to ensure the same
standards and protections across the home
nations and their devolved governments. There can
sometimes be great disparities between them –
one notable example being that when the Scottish
government mandated a requirement for sprinkler
systems to be installed in single-storey retail
premises, England took almost three years to
follow suit.
While it is often the case that the devolved
governments can lead the way in fire safety
regulation, more needs to be done to enable the
industry in Britain to continue to innovate and
deliver fire safety solutions suitable for the entire
UK, and this will need government support, and
regulatory backing.
However, the outlook for the future is
increasingly positive, as there is expected to be
a higher level of scrutiny for fire safety once all
aspects of the Fire Safety Act come into full effect,
with a much welcome greater emphasis on
compartmentation.
That said, the recent removal of the Building
Safety Manager role from the Building Safety Act
raised eyebrows in the sector. The role and its
function remains vital to building safety. Ultimately,
someone still must fulfil the criteria of this role, and
landlords and responsible persons will be unable to
not have someone covering the functions of the
building safety manager.
The concern remains however on what the
legislative framework is going to look like, and to
assuage leaseholders’ further fears of the
uncertain future they’ve experienced thus far in the
developing building safety crisis.
See the FPA website for more on fire safety:
thefpa.co.uk
enquiries@thefpa.co.uk
sm.britsafe.org | 29
Feature
New building
and fire safety
regime for
occupied
residential
buildings:
uncertainties
remain
Sofie Hooper
Head of policy
The Institute of Workplace and
Facilities Management (IWFM)
30 | sm.britsafe.org
A
s you probably know by now, the
Building Safety Act is a fact. Since
its Royal Assent in April, we’ve
been one step closer to the new regime for
managing building safety in (higher-risk)
residential buildings. The Act sets out a
series of principles, yet uncertainties linger
about how they translate into a practical
and proportionate operation in occupancy.
We’ll get to some of the questions later.
The big change, which crystallised at
the Lord’s review stage of the Bill, was the
deletion of the duty to appoint a building
safety manager (BSM). The aim of this
role was to support the Accountable
Person with their duties to look after the
management of fire and structural safety in
higher-risk buildings on a day-to-day basis.
The shift in government position has
been an undeniable setback for those of
us who have been advocating greater
competence in the occupation phase.
More so because the Part 4 (and 3)
duties in the Act still need to be delivered.
Indeed, it will still be the responsibility of
‘accountable persons’ to ensure they
have the necessary arrangements in
place to manage building safety risks,
meet the duties relating to information
and documents, and ensure meaningful
engagement with residents. All this
requires competence.
New competence framework for
building safety management
While the ‘duty to appoint’ a BSM in itself
is being scrapped, the competence
framework that underpins the competent
delivery of building safety management
in occupation is nearing its publication.
At the same time, it has completed its
pivot to organisational competence. PAS
8673 Built environment – Competence
requirements for the management of
safety in residential buildings –
Specification, should be used by all those
managing buildings, regardless of height,
both to assess their organisational
capability and to assess the competence
of their people who will oversee and/or
deliver building safety management.
Having worked on the competence
framework for some years now – first
through Working Group 8 of the
Competence Steering Group, then as
part of the Steering Group for PAS 8673
– IWFM will continue to collaborate with
other stakeholders in the occupation
phase to make sure that the Building
Safety Act will deliver on its purpose of
safe homes for people and overall safer
and better buildings.
Much like PAS 8673, the Building
Safety Alliance, the successor to
Working Group 8, is pivoting its work to
Feature
bring stakeholders across the sector together to
drive the culture change needed across the
occupation phase and disseminate best practice.
With so much of the operational implementation
to be determined via secondary legislation and
statutory guidance, the collaboration has got its
work cut out. Especially when we should remind
ourselves that the impact of the Building Safety Act
stretches beyond higher-risk residential buildings,
as buildings below 18m will also fall under the new
regime for refurbishments, works, etc. Hospitals,
for example, will fall under the scope of the regime,
but not for the Part 4 duties. Secondary legislation
will help fill in some of the questions around this.
Golden thread
At IWFM’s recent conference, we had a panel
discussion with the golden thread lead within
government about much of what is yet to be
determined in secondary legislation, and the
golden thread is one such key area.
What will need to be included in the golden
thread and how the information must be kept is
currently still under development. One point people
should understand is that not all elements of the
golden thread from the construction phase will fall
under the occupation phase’s golden thread
scope. The Health and Safety File, for example,
should be handed over to the client at the end of
the construction phase as per the CDM
Regulations, but it doesn’t fall under the scope of
the Building Safety Act’s golden thread for
occupation. It will therefore not be part of the
Building Safety Regulator’s enforcement check for
a building’s compliance with the Building Safety
Act. Of course the File must still be handed over
upon completion of the construction phase!
Another area of discussion is whether the safety
management system should be included in the
golden thread, given how it is very much
embedded within organisations delivering ‘Part 4
Duties’, who will often be distinct from the main
dutyholder, the Principal Accountable Person.
For new buildings, the collection of information
should be easier as the buildings will still move
through the new Gateway systems, and they will
not be able to progress without meeting
information requirements.
The more difficult question is around the
principle of proportionality for existing buildings.
Over the past few years, those managing buildings
have made great progress in collecting data, but
gaps are often still plentiful, especially when it
comes to structural safety information. So, what
would be proportionate? Intrusive surveys? Not
necessarily, especially as we know the regime is a
risk management based one. The information will
need to be sought and provided where it is
imperative for correct decision-making. You may
not need to know the internal layout for internal
“
The
government’s
own factsheet
says the golden thread will
have to be kept
in a digital
format, but
what exactly
does this
mean?
units (although there are exceptions), but you will
need to know the distance for egress in a hallway,
for example.
Another question is the degree of digitisation
(and interoperability) the sector would have to
undergo, as current capability is varied. The
government’s own factsheet says the golden
thread will have to be kept in a digital format,
but what exactly does this mean? A scanned
document may suffice but given this is a
compliance-driven sector, is that sufficient to shift
the dial towards better document and information
management? Yet, pushing the wider sector too
much may likewise mean outcomes cannot be
delivered against. A tricky balance is needed,
and dials may have to be shifted over time.
Additionally, we will need to understand the
context of the buildings in scope of the new
design and construction regime, but not the new
occupation regime, such as hospitals or care
homes. It is anticipated the golden thread will be
handed to the responsible person under the
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO)
in occupation. However, this policy has not yet
been finalised.
So, much of the detail is still being shaped and
the draft legislation will be consulted on shortly, not
least because the policymakers are aware of the
high stakes of not getting it right. Indeed, it is
critical for building safety management that the
information our professions base their decisions on
is accurate, accessible, up-to-date and shareable.
And yet, we are starting to get indications
of what may be required through related fire
safety legislation.
The Fire Safety Act has become applicable, and
with it the scope of the Fire Safety Order has been
extended to explicitly include flat front doors and
cladding in fire risk assessments. The Fire Safety
(England) Regulations 2022 are implementing
many Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations
relating to information requirements for high-rise
buildings (with some of the requirements also
applying to domestic buildings over 11m and any
domestic building). These include provisions on the
secure information box, floor plans and building
plans, lifts and essential firefighting equipment, etc.
We also know that these requirements need to be
in place by 23 January 2023.
It would not be a great surprise that any
complementary, yet to be finalised golden thread
requirements would become applicable later
in 2023.
For more information on the IWFM see:
iwfm.org.uk
To find out more about the Building Safety
Alliance, please get in touch with:
Sofie.Hooper@iwfm.org.uk
sm.britsafe.org | 31
Comment
Managing fire
safety in high-risk
residential buildings:
the challenges ahead
L
Andrew Bulmer
CEO
The Property Institute
32 | sm.britsafe.org
ast month, the industry marked
five years since the Grenfell Tower
tragedy, remembering the 72
people who lost their lives, those who
were injured, and their families and
friends, and reflecting on the impact the
disaster has had on the local community
and residents in high-rise buildings
across the country.
With the Building Safety Bill receiving
Royal Assent, the coming months will be
a significant period of preparation and
transition for all professionals in the built
environment industry, as the new
regime comes into effect, marking a
new chapter for building safety. The
Building Safety Act has introduced clear
accountabilities for all those involved in
the construction, upkeep and repair of
high-risk buildings in England.
Whilst we await the specific details
on statutory regulations of how the new
Act will work in practice, the
revolutionary new regime and regulatory
framework should ensure that a tragedy
like Grenfell never happens again.
As an industry, we must work
collaboratively with government and
other stakeholders to ensure the new
Act can become the robust safety net
which the industry has been striving
for and ensure that the regulations
and implementation of the Act are
proportionate and practical. We
must transform the industry culture,
remove the loopholes, commit to
robust regulation and fair governance,
expand and develop resources,
and eradicate complacency.
As the leading professional body
representing the leasehold and
build-to-rent property management
sectors, The Property Institute (TPI) has
been leading the charge for the new
building safety regime, while seeking to
protect residents from the significant
costs of remediation.
We are pleased that policymakers
have listened to key suggestions from
TPI and other industry bodies to improve
Comment
how the new regime will work in practice,
but there remain some key challenges
and concerns about the road ahead.
“
We must ensure
that remediation
of buildings
by developers,
and any new
developments
already in
planning, adhere
to the correct
standards.
Photograph: iStock/Travel_Motion
A question of standards
Most recently, our industry is concerned
about the ambiguity of remediation
standards and proportionality, particularly
in light of the new Developer Pledge.
Under pressure from secretary of
state, Rt. Hon. Michael Gove, a number
of housebuilders and developers have
committed to funding remediation for
past defects and poor work on their
buildings (45 have signed up to the
Developer Pledge, as of June 2022).
This is a very positive development,
however, as pointed out by Dame Judith
Hackitt and the Industry Safety Steering
Group (ISSG), only around half of them
have signed up to the Building a Safer
Future Charter (established to promote
culture change and to help improve
building safety for all those working in
the built environment). Also, only four
are pursuing Charter Champion status.
In addition, the ISSG has reported
that a number of new high-rise
development planning proposals have
been referred back by the Building
Safety Regulator at the first hurdle due
to poor fire safety design issues, a
troubling situation as one would have
hoped the construction sector is fully
committed to building better and safer
going forward, as well as fixing the
mistakes of the past.
Secondly, we are concerned about
the potential ‘wiggle room’ that the
developer pledge exposes. Developers
returning to fix their residential blocks
are challenging earlier remediation
specifications, while the basis of
assessment has already changed, with
the introduction of the PAS 9980
standard for external wall systems in
January this year, and the role of the
Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
PAS 9980 effectively replaces the
now withdrawn Consolidated Advice
Note and it is intended to take a more
holistic approach to remediation of
external wall systems.
For example, some cladding might be
safe on a building if other measures,
perhaps installing sprinklers, were taken.
The point is that the two standards are
different, and some developers are
rejecting solutions under the former
regime and switching to lest costly
solutions under the latter. In theory, that
should be fine, but who is marking their
homework to ensure the end result is
safe? Going further, will the Building
Regulator agree it is safe, as per the
Building Safety Act, which has a wider
definition of fire and structural safety?
We don’t want to be fixing buildings
twice to meet the standards required by
the future Regulator.
We must act now to ensure that
remediation of buildings by developers,
and any new developments already in
planning, consistently adhere to the
correct standards, encompassing
both the structural and fire safety
requirements of the Building Safety Act,
and PAS 9980.
Under the new Act, landlords, building
owners (in some cases, resident
directors), and in certain circumstances
their appointed managing agents, will
become Accountable Persons (APs) –
statutory duty-holders – and they need
to have access to expertise and
competent professionals who will carry
out risk assessments to a suitable and
consistent standard.
Within our sector, this means
consistency of standards by a robust
supply of competent and qualified
assessors to carry out safety inspections
on remediation work, and that of any new
buildings under development.
We expect that the BSR, and the
wider building safety industry, will lead
in the development of standards for
competency and prescribe how these
will be effectively implemented within
key building safety roles, as well as the
design of frameworks that set out
minimum standards of competence for
individuals and organisations managing
building safety.
We would of course welcome the
opportunity to be involved in the
development and delivery of these
standards across the sector, to
represent the interests and concerns of
our thousands of property management
professionals, collectively responsible
for tens of thousands of blocks and their
residents, up and down the country.
Volunteer lay directors of Resident
Management Companies (RMCs) are
very unlikely to have the competence,
knowledge and skills to meet their AP/
Principal AP obligations under the Act.
TPI successfully submitted an
amendment to the Act, enabling those
sm.britsafe.org | 33
Comment
directors to engage a professional Building Safety
Director to take on their onerous responsibilities.
Meanwhile, the proposed Building Safety Manager
(BSM) role was dropped from the Bill and did not
make the final Act. However, the functions of the BSM
still need to be carried out. Someone still needs to
do the work to keep the building safe. In large part,
that will fall to the day-to-day building managers,
who carry out many of the functions already.
However, there will be some extra work and
managers need to be very clear what they do and
don’t do, and always stay within their sphere of
competency. This especially applies to any
functions the Principal AP/AP might try to pass
down to them, for example, maintaining the
Building Safety File and system, and having the
building certified by the Regulator. This work is new
and brings additional risk.
What’s next?
The Building Safety Act, along with the Fire Safety
Act, has given us greater clarity and some
assurances that Grenfell and other such tragedies
will be prevented. The tools and the frameworks to
help industry make the changes for the future are
almost in place, and ready to be taken up by the
entire supply chain and professions.
The first requirements of the Building Safety Act
– building registration and the building control
competency frameworks – are expected to be
launched in April 2023, with the responsibilities and
34 | sm.britsafe.org
duties on Accountable Persons to be introduced in
October 2023.
The BSR Safety Cases approach (to show that all
reasonable steps have been taken to make sure ‘in
scope’ buildings – those at least 18m in height, or
have seven storeys and at least two residential units
– are safe and will remain safe when occupied by
residents) is likely to follow six months after that, in
April 2024, and we welcome the Health and Safety
Executive’s recent publication of an online ‘toolkit’,
designed to assist with preparing safety cases, with
information and advice on what the BSR is likely to
need in any submission.
Already, there has been some evidence of good
practice across private and social housing sectors
since Grenfell, with agencies, industry bodies, and
other suppliers and organisations getting to grips
with cladding and fire safety risks and building
remediation. As more detail of the new regime
emerges over the next 12 to 18 months, the industry
must start gearing up, and we don’t have a lot of time.
We need to keep the momentum and ensure
that key professionals are suitably prepared and
equipped with the understanding, competency,
and qualifications to ensure residential buildings
are built and managed in-line with the new
regulatory framework, as soon as possible.
Photograph: iStock/
RomanBabakin
For more information see:
tpi.org.uk
Comment
Photograph: iStock/Sundry Photography
England still lagging
behind on fire safety
in residential blocks
Lucy Brown
Affected leaseholder
UK Cladding Action Group
J
une 28th was anxiously awaited by
millions of leaseholders across the
country. It marked the date at which
the protections in the Building Safety
Act came into force, past which no
leaseholder (in a building above 11 metres)
could be given a bill to replace the
flammable cladding on their building.
The Building Safety Act also provides
for the remediation of buildings with
non-cladding ‘life critical defects’.
Leaseholders, millions of whom have
been trapped in unsellable flats with major
fire safety defects and facing six-figure
bills per flat to make their homes safe,
hope that the Act will bring about an end
to their nightmares. And for many it does.
However, with its numerous loopholes
and caps, the Act’s cost protections have
been described as a “bizarre lucky dip” for
leaseholders. Further, rather than raising
British fire safety standards to prevent
another Grenfell, the Act leaves
leaseholders holding the can for an
expensive fire safety bureaucracy
post-construction, rather than ensuring
that buildings are built in the first instance
to the basic fire safety standards required
in almost every other developed country.
There are undoubtedly several positive
aspects in the Building Safety Act and
Michael Gove’s department deserves
praise for their revisions to the initial Bill.
For example, the Defective Premises Act’s
limitations have been extended from six to
30 years; it is an offence to give any
leaseholder in a building above 11m a bill to
remediate flammable cladding; it creates
an independent Building Safety Regulator
to oversee the safety of buildings; and it
sets up a construction products regulator.
Sadly, with regard to other promising
headline provisions, many caveats
swiftly follow.
For example, The Building Safety Act
sets out that leaseholders in buildings
with ‘life critical’ non-cladding fire safety
defects (such as wooden balconies,
sm.britsafe.org | 35
Comment
missing/defective fire breaks, missing/defective
smoke vents, etc) will not be required to pay
anything to make their buildings safe. Except if the
leaseholders live in a building under 11m (even
though fires have taken hold of sub 11m buildings in
under 11 minutes, such as the Berkeley-built
Worcester Park development). And except if the
leaseholder owns a share (no matter how small) in
more than three properties. And except if the
leaseholders own their freehold and the developer
is unable to pay. And except, more broadly, if the
developer cannot be made to pay (for example, it
may be domiciled offshore or have dissolved) and
the freeholder does not meet the government’s
affordability test (a seemingly easy task for
corporates engaging in transfer pricing).
In these cases, leaseholders will bear the costs
to fix these non-cladding defects, but they will be
subject to a cap. Flats valued below £325,000 in
London and £175,000 outside of London will not
have to pay anything. This may initially sound fair,
but as always, the devil is in the detail.
For example, the caps are structured on a cliff
rather than a graduated basis. Flats above these
thresholds will pay £10,000 (outside London) and
£15,000 (within London) unless the value is over
£1,000,000.
However, at even £1 over the £1 million threshold,
the leaseholders cap more than triples to £50,000.
This is troubling given the current average flat price
of £1,062,000 in Central London and particularly so
when considering how the government is
36 | sm.britsafe.org
proposing to calculate the value (using the
purchase price plus the housing price index).
This is astonishing given that studies have
shown open market values are 50 per cent less for
flats with failed EWS1s. (An EWS1 is a certificate
from a fire safety engineer assessing the safety of
external wall materials on high rise blocks of flats. A
passing grade on this form is required by mortgage
lenders to approve lending against these flats).
England lags behind in high rise building fire safety
On the heels of the fifth anniversary of the tragic
Grenfell fire, it was hoped that the Building Safety
Act and the Fire Safety Act 2021 would help to
establish England into a world leader for fire safety.
Instead, the Acts provide for little improvement
in terms of safety standards and instead require
leaseholders to pay for an expensive fire safety
bureaucracy that is largely redundant and should
be unnecessary if the proper inspections and
certifications were completed in the first instance.
For example, multiple fire escapes are a key
aspect of fire safety because of the location of a
fire, because smoke vents may fail (as experienced
in the New Providence Wharf fire) and because
there needs to be sufficient space to
accommodate fleeing residents descending the
stairs (some of whom may have young children or
mobility issues), as firefighters simultaneously
ascend the fire escape of the building.
However, the UK has no requirement for a
second egress where a stay put strategy is
recommended. In contrast, multiple fire escapes
Comment
Photograph: iStock/
CHUNYIP WONG
are required for buildings above two storeys in
Canada; above four storeys in the US and Ireland;
and above 15m in India and the Netherlands.
To put it into perspective, the Grenfell Tower
was 24 storeys and buildings over 50 storeys with
only one fire escape have recently been approved
in central London.
The same is true of smoke alarms; the UK does
not require wired smoke alarms outside of
individual flats. Other developed nations require
all new builds to have carbon monoxide, smoke
detectors and strobe alarms hard wired in every
storey and sleeping area. This is regardless of
whether a stay put policy is in place.
Accountable person likely to prove costly
for leaseholders
The Building Safety Act requires that there be an
Accountable Person who has overall responsibility
for building safety and can be held criminally liable.
Where buildings are mixed use, this may prove
extra costly, as there may need to be several
people appointed (one per building lease).
Initial drafts of the Building Safety Bill also
proposed that each building over 18m should have
a Building Safety Manager (reporting to the
Accountable Person); the Department for Levelling
Up, Housing and Communities estimated the cost
for this role at an average of £60,000 per building
per year.
The Building Safety Manager role title has since
been removed, but the responsibilities remain.
These responsibilities include undertaking an
annual inspection of the external wall system and
reviewing fire doors (including individual flat front
doors) every six months.
If the construction products and installation are
properly certified and inspected in the first
instance, this costly frequency of inspection should
be unnecessary. Focus should be on key fire safety
measures that we know save lives, such as wired
smoke detectors, multiple egresses, functioning
smoke vents, etc., rather than the mundane and
trivial endeavours included in the responsibilities,
such as removing door mats (as they may
represent a trip hazard).
Mental health crisis
The building safety crisis has been devastating for
leaseholders. It has resulted in a mental health
crisis, with 90 per cent reporting a deterioration in
mental health and 23 per cent reporting thoughts
of suicide or self-harm.
Leaseholders have emptied their savings to pay
for waking watches, insurance premiums that have
skyrocketed by over 1,000 per cent (yes, 1,000 per
cent) and for expensive variable rate mortgages
that they’ve needed to take because they’ve been
unable to remortgage.
In the face of government and corporate
indifference to their plight, leaseholders across the
country have mobilised. They have formed action
groups at the local and national levels; they have
come from all over the country to protest in front of
Parliament; they have launched social media
campaigns; they have been sounding the alert over
shockingly unsafe building planning approvals; and
they have been bravely telling their stories of
mental health struggles and bankruptcy to the
media to try to shame the government into action.
While acknowledging that Michael Gove has
gone much further than any of his predecessors,
leaseholders are not prepared to accept a ‘lucky
dip’ approach that leaves so many facing large bills.
Leaseholders expect legislation that universally
frees them from the bills resulting from the poor
regulation and corporate malfeasance that caused
this crisis.
Leaseholders are now also acutely aware
that Britain is a laggard in fire safety globally and
are determined to ensure that this changes to
prevent any further building safety scandals or
Grenfell tragedies.
Lastly, leaseholders are unprepared to accept
the imposition of a costly safety bureaucracy that
not only puts the cart before the horse but also
charges leaseholders to build an elaborate fence
after the horse has bolted.
More from the UK Cladding Action Group at:
endourcladdingscandal.org
@ukcag
sm.britsafe.org | 37
Feature
By selecting third-party
certificated providers
of fire safety services,
a business can be
confident they are
getting competent help
in managing fire risks.
Competence
is crucial
A
Justin Maltby-Smith
Group Managing Director
BAFE Fire Safety Register
38 | sm.britsafe.org
s readers of Safety Management
will no doubt be aware, following
the Grenfell Tower fire, the
construction sector has been
scrutinised over how it operates in the
interest of life safety.
What is interesting however, is that this
scrutiny is now expanding further into the
existing built environment. There is now a
much greater public and regulatory focus
on whether fire safety risks are being
properly managed and maintained in all
types of occupied buildings, both
domestic and commercial.
It is therefore vital that safety
managers in charge of all types of
buildings are confident they are meeting
their legal duty to minimise fire safety
risks – especially if they are delegating
fire safety tasks to other teams or
individuals. This includes employing
contractors to undertake tasks like fire
risk assessments and install and maintain
equipment like fire detection and alarm
systems, emergency lighting, and fixed
gaseous fire extinguishing systems.
Understandably, over the last couple of
years there has been a huge focus on
reducing the risk of Covid infection and
spread in locations like workplaces and
public buildings. However, the recent
focus on Covid may mean duty holders in
charge of workplaces and public buildings
may have neglected to check and review
their fire risk assessments, fire safety
management procedures, and fire safety
equipment to ensure they are adequate,
up-to-date, and working correctly.
It is therefore vital that managers
check now whether any of their fire
safety measures, arrangements, and
equipment need to be re-examined,
revised, replaced, repaired, or
maintained, using competent fire safety
contractors to undertake this work if they
themselves do not have the appropriate
skills and knowledge.
The term ‘competent’ is used
frequently in fire safety guidance, and
was, for example, mentioned over 200
times in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report
following Grenfell. However, when a duty
holder – like a premises manager –
wishes to employ external organisations
to help them comply with their fire
safety legal duties, it can be difficult for
them to check and decide if the external
service provider is competent.
Feature
“
Once a business
has decided to
use a third-party
certificated fire
safety organisation,
it is important to
check they have
the appropriate
certification for
the specific type
of work required.
Photograph: iStock/LightFieldStudios
Competency schemes
To help duty holders identify competent
providers of fire safety services, the
BAFE Fire Safety Register has developed
formal competency schemes under
which providers can obtain independent
third-party certification by a
UKAS-accredited certification body to
demonstrate they are competent to
offer specific fire safety services.
There are various BAFE competency
schemes under which providers can
obtain independent UKAS-accredited
third-party certification, including for
services like fire risk assessment, and the
design, installation, commissioning, and
maintenance of equipment like fire
detectors and alarms, emergency lighting,
and gaseous fire extinguishing systems.
To achieve third-party certification to
one of the BAFE competency schemes,
the organisation must pass an audit and
is then regularly re-assessed (usually on
an annual basis) by a UKAS-accredited
third-party certification body to ensure
they are maintaining the required
standard of competence for the fire
safety service (or services) they provide.
Once an organisation has achieved this,
they are subsequently added to the
BAFE Fire Safety Register, which is a free
and publicly available record of these
evidentially competent organisations.
Government guidance (specifically
fire safety in the workplace assessment
guides) on using providers of fire safety
products and services states:
“Third-party quality assurance can offer
comfort both as a means of satisfying
you that goods and services you have
purchased are fit for purpose, and as a
means of demonstrating that you have
complied with the law.”
Therefore, although it is not
mandatory to use fire safety
organisations that have obtained
independent third-party certification of
their competence, failing to do so could
expose your organisation to unnecessary
risk and would not be in line with best
practice as laid out by government.
However, once a business has
decided to use a third-party certificated
fire safety organisation, it is just as
important to check they have the
appropriate certification for the specific
type of work required.
Fire safety organisations that have
achieved independent third-party
certification of their competence under
the BAFE schemes (or from another
provider of UKAS accredited third-party
certification services), will only be
certificated as competent to provide
one or more specific fire safety services.
It is therefore vital to check they have
third-party certification for all the types
of the work they will be undertaking.
To educate duty holders about the
importance of this check, BAFE runs an
awareness campaign, ‘Don’t Just Specify,
Verify’, and details of how to verify an
organisations’ third-party certification
under the appropriate BAFE competency
scheme are given in the box below.
By performing (and recording)
this quick check prior to any work
commencing, a business can
demonstrate it has exercised full due
diligence in checking the competence
of those helping it meet its duties
under fire safety law.
Golden thread
Under the new building safety regime
being introduced for certain high risk
buildings following Grenfell, a ‘golden
thread’ of information about the fire safety
of a building will have to be created and
updated throughout the life cycle of a
building – from its construction through to
occupation and ongoing maintenance.
This will provide a chain of
accountability showing how those
responsible for the building have been
managing fire and building safety risks.
However, in the event of a serious fire
safety failing or incident, the decisions
taken by those responsible for the
building will be closely scrutinised
through the golden thread, to check
that all appropriate and reasonable
measures were taken to reduce the risk
to life and property from fire. Therefore,
employing fire safety providers who
have proved their competency by
achieving the appropriate third-party
certification will help demonstrate that
suitable fire safety measures have been
taken and implemented.
As well as BAFE-registered
organisations that have achieved
UKAS-accredited third-party
certification, various other
UKAS-accredited third-party certification
schemes exist within the fire and wider
life safety markets. These also enable
providers to demonstrate their
competence through an independent
audit and certification process.
sm.britsafe.org | 39
Feature
BAFE therefore recommends that those in
control of fire safety in all premises only use
UKAS-accredited third-party certificated life
safety organisations. This advice applies
regardless of an whether organisation uses
providers who have been certificated and
registered under the relevant BAFE scheme or
by another provider of third-party certification.
In fact, in our ‘Don’t Just Specify, Verify’
campaign, we clearly state that other third-party
certification registers are available. This is how
important we believe that specifying competent,
third-party certificated fire safety providers is
to protecting people from fire safety risks in
buildings and sites.
How to verify a fire safety provider has
UKAS-accredited third-party certification
For third-party certification relating to a BAFE
competency scheme, this can be verified via the
BAFE website at: www.bafe.org.uk
Select the options to find/verify an organisation
and the results will reveal which BAFE competency
schemes they have achieved third-party certification
for. Importantly, the results will also show which
certification body performed the assessment and
awarded it.
For the BAFE schemes, only UKAS-accredited
certification bodies are licensed by BAFE to perform
the independent assessments of each fire safety
provider’s competence. The online BAFE Fire Safety
Register collates all the BAFE third-party certificated
organisations from multiple certification bodies to
offer a main hub of evidentially competent
organisations (for specific life and fire safety works).
For additional competency certification not
covered by the BAFE schemes, these can often be
verified via the UKAS-accredited certification body’s
website, as most have an online search facility for this
purpose. If not, we recommend calling or emailing
before awarding any contract or allowing work to
commence so you can be certain of an organisation’s
competency for fire safety work.
For further information on the BAFE
competency schemes and the UKASaccredited certification bodies BAFE
works with, see:
bafe.org.uk
For further information on the BAFE
‘Don’t Just Specify, Verify’ campaign,
and to show your support for this, please
complete the form at:
bafe.org.uk/djsv
NEBOSH
Certificate
in Fire Safety
Seize the opportunity and learn and
develop the fire safety skills to help
protect people, property, and your
business from the harm fire can cause.
Book now:
T. 020 8741 1231
www.britsafe.org/nfc
40 | sm.britsafe.org
658
MT212
Feature
SC Johnson Professional
Stay
protected
in the sun
Photograph: SC Johnson Professional
People who work
outdoors are at
increased risk of skin
cancer from sun
exposure, making it
essential they are
trained to protect
themselves.
E
xperts believe that 90 per cent of
all skin cancer deaths could be
prevented, if over-exposure to UV
(ultraviolet) radiation from sunlight is
controlled1. Summer has arrived in the
UK and with it we could see a UV index
of up to 8², which is classed as ‘very high’³.
It is vital to remember that additional
protection against UV exposure is
recommended for a UV index of 3 and
above4. Additionally, the UV index can
still be high even when the sun is not out
as even when it is cloudy up to 80 per
cent of the sun’s rays can pass through⁵.
Those who work outdoors, such as
construction workers and farmers, can be
at particularly high risk of over-exposure
to UV rays in sunlight, especially during
the summer months. They spend the
majority of their working day exposed to
a silent threat to the health of their skin.
When it comes to employers’
responsibilities, the Health and Safety at
Work Act states there is a legal duty to
safeguard, as far as is reasonably practical,
the health of employees. It also states that
employers must provide “information,
instruction, training and supervision”
to ensure their workforce’s safety⁶.
Also, the Management of Health and
Work Regulations 1999 require employers
to conduct a suitable assessment of
the risks to the health of their workforce,
including risks from UV radiation7.
Finally, according to Health and Safety
Executive guidelines, UV radiation
should be considered an occupational
hazard for those who work outdoors⁸.
SC Johnson Professional recently
surveyed health and safety practitioners
at UK companies on attitudes to
protecting workers from UV, with 114
participating. The four-year research
project was designed to understand the
gaps in awareness and any challenges
employers face. It found that safety
professionals knew there was a gap in
employees’ knowledge and training
about the risks from UV and how to
protect themselves, but were unsure
of how to tackle this. In fact, one in two
organisations surveyed did not provide
any training to workers on when and
how to use UV protection.
A skin care programme is essential
when it comes to raising employee
awareness around the risks and
encouraging proper skin protection
against UV rays. Informative training
on best practice can be delivered via
‘Toolbox Talks’, and video case studies
can help underline real world examples of
how over-exposure can impact on health.
The training should also highlight the
‘5 S approach’ – slip, slop, slap, slide
and shade. This approach – which
involves precautions like applying
sunscreen with a Sun Protection Factor
of 30 or above and covering the skin
with clothing and hats – can significantly
prevent excessive UV exposure at work.
SC Johnson Professional offers free
UV training materials and products
to help workers stay protected:
scjp.com/en-gb/uv-protectionbest-practice
sm.britsafe.org | 41
Taking you to the next level
Study with us and benefit from:
• Pass rate above the
national average
• Interactive learning techniques
• Extensive resources
• 1-2-1 support
• Delivered by experts.
Gain your certificate with our
Digital Learning, Classroom,
or Virtual Classroom.
Book now:
T. +44 (0)20 8741 1231
www.britsafe.org/msiosh
MT214
IOSH Managing Safely
Feature
Cutting
through
the noise
Advances in hearing
protection technology
are making it easier to
warn workers in
real-time to protect
themselves from
hearing damage – and
spot those who could
be at greatest risk.
New technology can send personalised messages on hearing protection. Photograph: Minuendo
N
Neal Muggleton
Chief operating officer (COO)
System Science
Minuendo
oise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is
a global health problem. According
to the World Health Organization
(WHO), an estimated 1.3 billion people
worldwide suffer from hearing loss due
to noise exposure through work or leisure
activities. Occupational noise exposure is
responsible for 16 per cent of all cases of
disabling hearing loss in adults. In the UK,
the Health and Safety Executive reported
14,000 new cases of work-related
hearing loss in 2021 – and this is likely
to be a conservative estimate.
Workers employed in the
construction, manufacturing, mining,
agriculture, utilities and transportation
industries, as well as military personnel
and musicians, have the highest risk of
occupational NIHL. Although hearing
loss is serious and debilitating, most
people simply don’t realise they have
damaged their hearing until it is too late
– and the effects are irreversible.
What is the problem?
The root problem is that noise exposure
is highly variable and can be difficult to
predict. Transient peaks – such as walking
past a noisy machine or a large vehicle
passing by – may not even register as a
risk. And even where the risk is
recognised, exposure limits may have
been exceeded before the employee is
informed or has time to respond.
Another major factor is that the
actual attenuation provided by hearing
protectors in real-world settings varies
significantly between individuals.
Results in the field don’t always
correlate well with the noise reduction
performance suggested by the
manufacturer. This can make spotting
areas for improvement problematic.
These variances can be further
exacerbated because traditional
earmuffs and earplugs are not always
correctly deployed: workers commonly
find them uncomfortable or restrictive
to wear, particularly when attempting
to communicate with colleagues. In
industrial and construction settings,
this can present a safety risk in itself:
particularly where mobile, heavy
machinery such as forklifts, lorries,
passing trains, drilling rigs and dumper
trucks is present.
For employers, this is a real headache.
Traditional hearing protection cannot
help them to understand what level of
protection is being achieved over time.
Nor can passive devices support
employers in understanding whether
their hearing protection measures are
effective and legally robust.
For the health and safety manager,
lack of reliable data and insight is
sm.britsafe.org | 43
Feature
compounded because hearing loss prevention is
just one of their many responsibilities. Other
significant daily tasks include compiling safety
reports, investigating and reporting on safety
incidents, devising corrective actions and updating
processes and procedures. The role also demands
close attention to health and safety legislation to
ensure compliance with many wide-ranging
regulations. In other words, the safety manager
often simply does not have the resources to work
at an individual employee level – particularly where
the workforce is highly mobile or widely dispersed.
So, for some businesses, the current situation
on NIHL in the workplace is this: safety managers
are time-poor and drowning in data; employers
have no accurate record of an individual’s noise
exposure over time; and employees are not being
empowered to take responsibility for their own
wellbeing. Clearly, a more effective way to tackle
NIHL in the workplace is needed.
Optimum solution
Any effective new solution must avoid information
overload and provide safety managers with
meaningful and actionable insights so their limited
time and resource can be properly targeted. Also, any
physical equipment needs to be comfortable and
intuitive to ensure that it is worn correctly by end-users
to provide the highest levels of hearing protection.
Ideally, the new solution should also reinforce
good practice and involve employees proactively
and personally in taking action to prevent damage
to their hearing while at work. For the employer, an
accurate record of each individual’s noise
exposure would be a major improvement –
particularly in demonstrating compliance.
It’s a tall order, but the good news is that the
technology now exists to answer all these
requirements. Using a combination of technology
transfer and the enormous potential of digitalisation,
it is possible for employers to make a major
step-change in how they tackle NIHL in the workplace.
For example, the physical discomfort or
inconvenience experienced by wearers of
traditional earmuffs and earplugs can be
remedied by adopting design advances from the
professional music sector. Lossless earplugs are
now commonly available that use foam and silicon
materials to achieve a universal fit. These earplugs
are extremely small and lightweight, offering
excellent noise attenuation properties without
compromising the wearer’s situational awareness.
Meanwhile, the evolution of intelligent digital
technologies is enabling more effective data
collection, analysis and interpretation in almost
every aspect of our lives. Ubiquitous connectivity
makes it possible to collate and transmit massive
amounts of data reliably from many locations at
once – often in real time. In a health and safety
setting, it is easy to see how wireless connectivity
44 | sm.britsafe.org
could be deployed to support noise monitoring
regimes and alert safety managers and workers
at the point action is required.
“
Active noise
monitoring
means that
when an
immediate
risk is
detected, an
individual
alarm will
alert the
employee to
take action.
Less noise, more insight
New protective equipment that combines the latest
aural comfort with the data collection, storage and
analysis capabilities that modern working
environments demand is now available.
For the first time, employees can take
responsibility in real time. Active noise monitoring
means that when an immediate risk is detected,
an individual alarm will alert the employee to take
action. This may mean moving further from the
noise source, using the ergonomically designed
earplugs, or adding more hearing protection. Data
from each shift can be uploaded in the cloud and
used to generate further guidance. For example,
employees can receive automated notifications
about their daily noise exposure levels in the form
of emails or text messages. These messages can
also provide straightforward suggestions that they
can adopt to lower their risk of NIHL.
Cloud-based storage and analysis can also
provide the insight and targeted approach that
safety managers need to be more effective. These
intelligent personal monitoring systems can be
configured to present critical data in a simple
dashboard format. This access to contextual data
cuts through the noise and helps to prevent
information overload. It allows the safety manager to
pinpoint the individuals who are most at risk of NIHL,
enabling them to work with them collaboratively –
not coercively – to drive improved behaviours.
Nor are these new hearing loss prevention
solutions limited to recording noise exposure
levels. The intelligent technology can also provide
other valuable usage data, such as when and how
well the earplugs have been fitted. Cloud storage
also allows historical noise exposure data to be
stored over time. This data pool provides a vital
audit trail of compliance should it be required.
Conclusion
Current occupational hearing loss prevention
processes are often inadequate and not fully effective.
They rely on passive and outdated equipment that
does little to support safety managers, employers
and employees in tacking the problem.
In the 21st century, it is simply unacceptable
that anyone should suffer the consequences of
workplace-induced hearing loss. The condition
is entirely preventable – and we now have the
technological tools to achieve real and permanent
behavioural change.
This article is based on the white paper
Cutting Through The Noise, which is free
to download at:
minuendo.com/cutting-through-the-noise
Advertisements
Automating Hearing
Loss Prevention
Smart Alert promotes safer
behaviour to improve hearing health
and wellbeing.
www.minuendo.com/smart-alert-earplugs
Download our new
“Cutting through the Noise”
white paper
SECTOR INTEREST
GROUPS ARE LOOKING
FOR NEW MEMBERS
We are particularly interested in attracting engagement
from our international members.
We have openings in the following groups:
• Construction • Housing & local authority
• Healthcare
• Manufacturing
• Retail
• Stadia.
To find out more: T. +44 (0)20 8741 1231
SIG@britsafe.org | www.britsafe.org/SIGS
Registered Charity No. 1097271 and OSCR No. SC037998.
MPO213
sm.britsafe.org | 45
Feature
Let’s make
digging
even safer
LSBUD, a free portal that
allows users, including
contractors, construction
companies and the
public, to search for
underground pipes
and cables to avoid
dangerous utility strikes,
is proving more popular
than ever. However,
there is still room for
improvement, with some
asset providers still being
slow to register their
data with the system.
I
Richard Broome
Managing director
LSBUD
46 | sm.britsafe.org
t’s estimated that four million digging
projects take place every year across
the UK, with 3.4 million of these being
preceded by a thorough asset search on
LSBUD’s portal. LSBUD is free service
that allows anyone undertaking work like
excavations to check for the presence of
utility assets registered on the portal (like
underground and overhead pipes and
cables carrying services like electricity,
gas, high pressure fuel and water), to
avoid striking them and putting workers
and others in danger. This is a 10 per cent
increase on the previous year and means
that 84 per cent of excavations in the
UK are taking place safely and with an
understanding of what lies beneath
the ground.
Further to this, awareness of the free
LSBUD search database among high-risk
groups, such as the general public and
farmers, is increasing. According to
LSBUD’s Digging up Britain 2022 report,
six per cent of all searches (157,428)
made in 2021 came from private
individuals, a 25 per cent increase on the
previous year. This growth highlights the
surge in consumer awareness that free
checks for utility assets can be made
before starting work, with searches for
domestic works projects increasing by
83 per cent. Agricultural works also saw
a substantial increase over the year, with
the total number of searches increasing
from 3,446 to 6,067 – a massive 76 per
cent rise.
Away from private individuals,
analysis of searches made on LSBUD’s
collaborative portal show the majority
of digging work was undertaken on
behalf of the telecoms sector, followed
by the water industry. This has been
Feature
the case since the Digging up Britain
report first launched, with the two
sectors accounting for 77 per cent
of all digging work in 2021.
With home improvements on the rise,
the government’s renewed focuses on
the roll-out of broadband and 5G, and
more people driving electric vehicles (EVs)
than ever before, it is clear to see why the
telecoms sector has such a significant
impact on the UK’s digging habits.
When it comes to accidents at home,
or out in the field, of all the safety-related
digging incidents reported to HSE in
2021, just 41 were recorded as injuries,
with none being fatal. This represents a
48 per cent decrease on 2020, and is a
positive sign that the educational safe
digging message is gaining momentum.
“
The more people
that search the
portal before they
dig, the safer we
stay as a nation.
Photograph: iStock/ChiccoDodiFC
Good practice
To highlight the point of the safe digging
industry operating at its best, let’s
consider this real-life example.
Last Mile, which supplies electricity
and gas to 400,000 customers, has
network reliability and availability as its
key priority.
In 2021, it joined the LSBUD system in
a bid to better protect its networks and
the people working nearby. Historically,
Last Mile would respond to requests for
network drawings from parties like
contractors and local authorities through
a manually intensive process that
involved a small team of administrators.
With the business, and network, growing,
it started to receive an ever-increasing
number of requests, requiring more and
more resources.
Before joining the LSBUD’s
collaborative portal, Last Mile was
receiving 6,000 enquiries a month,
which in turn typically led to 100 positive
‘interactions’ – a situation where the
enquirer is working close to its network.
Since joining LSBUD, Last Mile now
receives around 290,000 enquiries a
month and this leads to 5,000 ‘affected’
interactions – a 4,900 per cent increase.
By making it easier for people to be
aware of the location of its apparatus, Last
Mile has taken the right steps to better
protect its assets and all those working
nearby – both from the risk of injury due
to accidental utility strikes, and service
disruption and repair costs arising from
asset strikes. By successfully partnering
with companies such as Last Mile, the
LSBUD network is able to grow, and the
service’s ability to map and highlight
critical areas of concern further improves
– benefiting every party involved.
Water sector at risk
While there is much to cheer about in
the 2021 data, there is still the challenge
of encouraging water companies to
share details of the locations of their
assets. The sector once again remained
the worst-performing when it comes to
disclosing pipeline information, with just
15 per cent of water companies
currently subscribing to the LSBUD
portal. In contrast, the gas and
electricity sectors currently have 90 and
92 per cent representation, respectively.
This means that water companies are
missing out on the benefits of increasing
network resilience – and reducing leakage
and unplanned interruptions. Those water
companies that do subscribe to LSBUD’s
collaborative portal are seeing the
benefits first-hand. For example,
Portsmouth Water reduced strikes on its
network by 26 per cent in just 12 months.
Interestingly, the water industry is
acutely aware of the need to perform
asset searches. In the report, it ranks as
the second most active sector, behind
telecoms, when it comes to searching
the LSBUD portal before undertaking its
own digging. Indeed, water companies
and their contractors accounted for
914,886 requests in 2021. This was an
11 per cent increase on the previous
year and accounted for 27 per cent of
all searches performed in 2021.
In summary
Not only is performing an asset search
common practice across all industries,
but it is now much more common
among the general public and highly
vulnerable groups, which is great to see.
This is significant because the
volume of digging work across the UK is
set to boom in 2022 and beyond with
the government striving to reach its 5G,
broadband and EV targets.
The more people that search before
they dig now, the safer we stay as a
nation, even when more works are
taking place. Our message is simple –
always search before you dig.
To download a copy of Digging
up Britain 2022, visit:
lsbud.co.uk/digging-up-britainreport
sm.britsafe.org | 47
Legal comment
Offshore oil & gas
and shipping: a
complex legal picture
A
Bruce Craig
Partner
Pinsent Masons LLP
48 | sm.britsafe.org
lthough in recent years there
has been a movement towards
renewable energy, the UK
continues to rely heavily on the North Sea
offshore oil and gas industry to meet its
energy needs. It is therefore fair to say
that rumours of the demise of offshore
oil and gas are greatly exaggerated.
So, which laws apply in the UK to
shipping on the one hand and to offshore
oil and gas installations on the other?
The movement and operation of
ships, and the operation of offshore oil
and gas installations and infrastructure,
are clearly interlinked – for example,
when ships supply materials to an
offshore installation or are used to
maintain the structure. An important
question is when is a ship classed as an
offshore installation under safety and
maritime laws?
The main legislation covering the
safe operation of shipping in the UK is
the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (MSA).
This is a consolidating Act which
helpfully pulled together in one place
the bulk of the shipping law in the UK.
In addition to the MSA there is the
Marine Safety Act 2003, which is
especially relevant to port safety.
Under the MSA there are various
regulations which are important in
relation to requiring ship owners and
operators to protect the health and
safety of people working on ships. The
most important of these are the
Merchant Shipping & Fishing Vessels
Health & Safety at Work Regulations
1997. Regulation 7 of the 1997
Regulations requires a “suitable and
sufficient” assessment to be made of
the risks to the health and safety of
Legal comment
“
The oil and
gas legislative
framework
is a bit of a
patchwork.
Photograph: iStock/NiseriN
workers on ships. This requirement to
assess risks to the health and safety of
workers (and others who could be put in
danger), is common across the UK’s
health and safety system – whether in
shipping, onshore or in the offshore
safety regime.
In addition, the Merchant Shipping
(Distress Signals and Prevention of
Collisions) Regulations 1996 (generally
known simply as ‘the Collision
Regulations’), place duties on ship
owners and operators to prevent – or
reduce – the risk of shipping collisions
that could cause damage to property
and infrastructure. The duty to prevent
collisions (and associated damage)
applies both to collisions between ships
and situations such as a ship striking an
offshore wind farm or a drilling rig.
If a ship is registered in the UK then
the MSA will apply to that ship wherever
it is operating in the world.
However, if a ship is non-UK
registered then the MSA will only apply
to it while it is in a UK port and within the
UK Territorial Sea. If a non-UK registered
vessel is operating outside the UK
Territorial Sea then the UK’s merchant
shipping legislation will not apply to it. In
this situation, the international law of the
sea will apply even if the ship is in seas
above the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS),
the region of waters surrounding the UK
in which the country has mineral rights
(including the UK’s section of North Sea
oil and gas fields).
It is important to appreciate the
distinction between the Territorial Sea
and the UKCS. The Territorial Sea runs 12
nautical miles from the UK coast but the
UKCS runs all the way to the boundaries
of the equivalent continental shelves
with other nations. So, for example, in
the North Sea the UKCS runs up to the
relevant boundaries with, respectively,
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.
So, the UKCS extends far further from the
UK coast than the Territorial Sea does.
Offshore oil and gas legislation
In relation to the UK’s offshore oil and gas
legislation – covering both the general
operation of offshore oil and gas fields
and platforms, and the safety of offshore
oil and gas installations and operations
– there is unfortunately no consolidating
Act, unlike how the MSA is a consolidating
law covering shipping operations.
In fact, the oil and gas legislative
framework is a bit of a patchwork which
has been built up since the early 1970s.
As a result, some of the terminology in
the various laws doesn’t sit well.
For example, there are at least five
different terms which describe or
reference offshore installations and this
undoubtedly causes confusion. The terms
used for offshore installations include
production installation, non-production
installation, fixed installation, mobile
installation and drilling rig.
Other important terms within the
legislation include ‘duty holder’ and
‘operator’. The duty holder is ordinarily the
legal person in whose name the ‘safety
case’ for the installation runs. In essence,
a safety case is a set of policies, rules and
procedures setting out how the offshore
installation will be safely operated, and
its workers kept safe, which must be
approved by the offshore safety regulator,
the Health and Safety Executive. The
requirement for a safety case is contained
in the Safety Case Regulations 2005.
In contrast, the operator is ordinarily
the party which has the right to operate
within the offshore field in which the work
is ongoing. It can be easy to confuse the
duty holder with the operator.
One of the main provisions in UK oil
and gas law goes all the way back to
1982. This is section 23 of the Oil & Gas
Enterprise Act. This contains the term
“exploration and exploitation of offshore
natural resources” and in general terms
this is how offshore oil and gas operations
and activities are defined in the law.
In terms of ensuring the safety of
offshore oil and gas installations,
activities and workers, another
important law is the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974 (Application Outside
Great Britain) Order 2013. This extends
the application of all relevant duties
under UK health and safety at work
legislation to offshore installations.
Other important laws and legal duties
relevant to offshore oil and gas are
contained in the Petroleum Act 1998.
In particular, Section 10 of the Act
provides that UK criminal law applies
to an installation and everything within
500 metres of it even if it is in transit.
Some offshore installations are in
essence ships – for example, because
they are floating platforms, or vessels.
which can move from one sea location
to another to drill for oil and gas, or for
maintenance purposes.
sm.britsafe.org | 49
Legal comment
As a result, an offshore installation may be
registered as a ship in the UK or elsewhere, and/or
may be legally classed as a ship in the UK even if it
is not registered here. As such, there is potentially a
crossover between whether the UK oil and gas
legislation, the UK shipping legislation, or both,
apply to the safe operation of the installation.
So, potentially, three different legal regimes may
apply at the same time. These are merchant
shipping legislation, health and safety at work
legislation, and oil and gas legislation.
Failure to comply with any of the three legislative
regimes and requirements can lead to criminal
sanctions (including prosecutions and fines), and
there may also be civil legal duties, such as a
requirement to pay compensation for incidents
resulting from a failure to meet the requirements of
any of the three regimes. In some circumstances, it
can be very difficult for the duty holder in charge of
the relevant offshore installation to work out which
laws apply.
When an offshore installation is also a ship
So, given the overlap of the legislation, a question
which commonly arises is when is an offshore
installation a ship?
The basic point is that an offshore installation
can be both an offshore installation and a ship at
the same time. If it does fall into both categories
then this means that the MSA and also the oil and
gas legislation will apply to it concurrently.
If the oil and gas legislation applies, then the
Health and Safety at Work Etc 1974 (HSWA) and
related regulations will also apply. The MSA defines
“ship” as “including every description of vessel used
in navigation”. A vessel is simply something which
floats and there is case law stating that “used in
navigation” doesn’t mean the need for the vessel
to be able to navigate itself from port to port. If it is
50 | sm.britsafe.org
Photograph: iStock/
CharlieChesvick
capable of navigation by propelling itself across
the sea then this makes it a ship under UK law.
An offshore installation within the UKCS is any
installation to which a safety case applies under
the Safety Case Regulations. So, if a vessel has a
safety case and is capable of navigation, then it will
be both an offshore installation and a ship at the
same time.
For the purposes of deciding whether the
offshore installation is also a ship there are at least
four different categories to consider. These are: a
fixed installation; a mobile installation which is UK
registered as a ship; a mobile installation which is
not capable of navigation and therefore isn’t a ship
as defined by the MSA; and then lastly a mobile
installation which is capable of navigation but
happens not to be registered in the UK.
The last of the four categories applies to all
mobile installations capable of navigation so long
as they are not registered in the UK – whether they
are registered abroad or are not registered at all.
Therefore, the MSA won’t apply to a fixed
installation, such as a fixed offshore platform that
is not capable of navigation. Merchant shipping
legislation won’t apply to a mobile installation if it isn’t
capable of navigation. If it’s a UK-registered ship the
MSA applies to it when operating worldwide.
For the fourth category – a mobile installation
which is capable of navigation but happens not to
be registered in the UK – then the MSA will apply to
it but only while it is in the UK Territorial Sea.
Bruce Craig leads the Pinsent Masons
litigation team in Aberdeen as a litigation
and regulatory partner specialising
in health and safety, shipping and
commercial disputes. Contact him at:
pinsentmasons.com
bruce.craig@pinsentmasons.com
Thousands of organisations
have trusted us over the years
to help them seize opportunities
through challenging times.
Find out more:
T. +44 (0)20 3510 3510
www.britsafe.org
Registered Charity No. 1097271 and OSHCR No. SC037998.
MC221
Now is the time
to invest in you
and your team
We offer training and qualifications in health,
safety and environmental management,
including NEBOSH and IOSH.
Choose your delivery style:
• In-classroom
• Virtual classroom
• e-learning
• In-company training.
Why choose the British Safety Council?
• Our expert tutors
• High quality, easy to access resources
• Intensive exam preparation
• Exceptionally high pass rate.
Seize the opportunity and book your
training now.
MT221
Contact us:
T. +44 (0)20 8741 1231
E: customerservice@britsafe.org
www.britsafe.org/AllTraining