H&S File – to be or not to be?
A relatively quick update from Gatwick: The new Pier being built for the large A380 aircraft is approaching the end of the primary steelwork installation. Prefab passenger bridges connecting the building to the rest of the terminal have also craned into place. It is during this installation a fairly serious H&S incident was observed (see pic below). This shows a worker underneath a suspended passenger bridge frame. Under LOLER regs states there should be ‘a secondary means to support the load’ which clearly isn’t really fulfilled by the forklift. If the frame had been rested on trestles or props the risk could have been minimised. In short if one of the slings fail then there is nothing to stop the load injuring the worker. Clearly the worker was immediately informed of this and a near miss raised.
I have also been the client lead for some GI works at other site at the airport in preparation for ground works (aircraft pavement replacement and pile foundations) for the Pier 6 extension main build. These small packages of works have been separately contracted out to framework contractors who are well established at Gatwick. At one site, an aircraft stand, the GI involved concrete core sampling and in-situ testing of the subbase layer with a DCP. The GI works are now complete but the principal contractor seems to think that a H&S file is required. Firstly I’m not sure why they are raising this as it is prepared by the principal designer. Under CDM a H&S file is required where there is more than one contractor involved. There were two contractors involved on the works: the principal contractor (who also cored the PQ concrete to reach the subbase) and a subcontractor who completed the sampling and testing. However, I’m still not clear if a H&S file is needed in this instance. The coreholes were reinstated with a bentonite solution and I can’t see how there would be residual risks, as-builts (maybe corehole locations?) or maintenance requirements to document?
Clearly a H&S file will be delivered as part of the overall Pier 6 project by the principal designer, so this package of works would form part of that. The GI report would be delivered as part of the Pre-Construction Information for the groundworks contractor.
Looking forward I will be getting involved with the ground works contract for the main Pier 6 extension.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Al, the oversight of maintenance of the APBB used to be part of my remit at Gatwick. The airport has trestle frames that must be used to support the bridges when any maintenance is being undertaken on their supporting structures.
Did you appoint a principal designer for this pre-construction phase? If not it may be seen that you the client have assumed the role of the principal designer (see link http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/cdm-2015-can-a-client-appoint-a-principal-designer-for-part-of-the-project/).
Is it a near miss if nothing actually fell? Is it not an unsafe condition?
I ask because we had a similar unsafe condition regarding some scaffolding and the definition was important. I’ve got some photos I’ll upload which lay it out in a blog in a moment (can’t put photos in a reply).