CIRIA C686 London, 2009

Safe access for

maintenance and repair.
Guidance for designers
second edition 2009
Updated for CDM2007 and other new legislation

J Iddon
J Carpenter

Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP

TEL: +44 (0)20 7549 3300 FAX: +44 (0)20 7253 0523
EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: www.ciria.org
 Safe access for maintenance and repair. Guidance for designers second edition 2009
Updated for CDM2007 and other new legislation

Iddon, J and Carpenter, J

CIRIA

C686 © CIRIA 2009 RP649 ISBN: 978-0-86017-686-2

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Keywords
Health and safety, building and construction technology, building and facilities
management, construction process and management

Reader interest Classification

Health and safety, AVAILABILITY Unrestricted
facilities management, CONTENT Subject area review
design, site safety, site
management, STATUS Committee guided
CDM2007 USER Clients, designers, architects and
engineers, CDM co-ordinators and others
involved in the design and maintenance
of structures and buildings

Published by CIRIA, Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London, EC1V 9BP

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter
covered. It is sold and/or distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is
thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any other professional service. While every effort has
been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty or fitness is
provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any
person or entity with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder,
application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be
obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other
CIRIA publication for use in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department
for more details on copyright terms and charges at: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7549 3300.

ii CIRIA C686
 Summary

The purpose of this document is to assist designers by providing good practice

guidance aimed specifically at designing for safe maintenance and repair. The
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 require designers to give
careful consideration to risks to workers and others throughout the life of a structure.
The benefits of whole-life thinking are also increasingly being realised in terms of
sustainability and investment decision making.

This guidance is targeted primarily at building designers but will be of interest to

clients, CDM co-ordinators and facilities managers. It is noted that design input occurs
at any point in the supply chain and the definition of designer encompasses anyone
involved in design decision making, irrespective of their role.

An overview of the commercial and regulatory backdrop, statutory obligations and

alternative procurement processes is presented, followed by targeted design guidance
for a variety of building elements and work situations. References are also given for
further reading.

Rigorous attention to access issues will not only reduce accidents and ill health, but will
promote efficient and cost-effective processes.

CIRIA C686 iii

 Acknowledgements

Research contractor

This guide is the main output from CIRIA research project 649. It was prepared by
Arup in association with John Carpenter.

Authors

Joanne Iddon BEng MSc CEng MICE MIStructE

Joanne Iddon was lead author for this book and is an associate with Arup. Originally
from a building design background Joanne now acts as project manager assisting client
organisations with all aspects of the development, construction and management of
their building portfolios.

John Carpenter CEng FICE FIStructE MIOSH

John Carpenter, acts as an independent consultant, and is also secretary of the

Standing Committee on Structural Safety (SCOSS). Formerly Director of health and
safety at the Symonds Group, he has lectured extensively on the business benefits of
good health and safety risk management, and of the synergy with the constructing
excellence agenda, and is actively engaged in a wide range of construction related
research and investigative projects.

Following CIRIA’s usual practice, the research project was guided by a steering group,
which comprised:

Steering group

Mr S Taylor (chair) Health and Safety Executive

Mr S Blausten Cyril Leonard Chartered Surveyors
Mr G Burnett Total Access (UK) Ltd
Mr A Churton Estuary Housing Association (representing the Confederation
of Construction Clients)
Mr P Devlin Wright & Wright Architects
Mr D Goodchild Health and Safety Executive
Mr R Keenan Sheppard Robson
Mr A Keiler Centre for Windows and Cladding Technology
Mr A Perry Group 4 Falck Global Solutions UK Ltd (representing the
British Institute of Facilities Management)
Mr D Scott Laing Construction Ltd
Mr M Sims HL Plastics Ltd
Mr B Smith Atkins
Mr J Tribich Leo Lewis & Co representing the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors

iv CIRIA C686
 Mr B Towse Heating and ventilation Contractors Group
Ms C Wright Wright & Wright Architects

CIRIA manager

CIRIA’s research manager for this project was Dr A J Pitchford.

Project funders

This project was funded by:

Health and Safety Executive

HL Plastics Ltd
CIRIA Core Programme Sponsors

Technical organisations

CIRIA and the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these funding
organisations, the technical help and advice provided by the members of the steering
group and the following individuals:

Colleagues and specialists throughout Arup in particular Phil King (Arup Façades),
Mark Thomas (Arup Facilities Management) for reviewing the document and Amy
Sebba (Arup Project Management) for assisting the authors in co-ordinating and
collating all the technical contributions.

Contributions do not imply that individual funders necessarily endorse all views
expressed in published outputs.

Second edition

Revisions for the second edition were prepared by Alan Gilbertson and John Carpenter.

CIRIA C686 v
 Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1 Setting the scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.2 Purpose of this guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.3 Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1.4 Target readership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.5 Key drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1.5.1 The business case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1.5.2 Insurance issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.5.3 Statutory obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1.5.4 Government and industry initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.6 Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
1.6.1 Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
1.6.2 Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1.6.3 CDM co-ordinator contributions to safe access provision . .12
1.6.4 The role of others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
1.7 Statutory and good practice processes leading to safe access
provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
1.7.1 Risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
1.7.2 Design processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
1.7.3 Procurement and construction processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2 Designing for access for maintenance and repair work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
2.2 General aspects of maintenance and repair work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
2.3 Access for maintenance and repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
2.3.1 Routes to and from the workface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
2.3.2 Work at height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
2.3.3 Making decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
2.3.4 Access systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
2.3.5 Conditions at the workface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

3 Work sector guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

3.1 Below ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
3.2 Primary structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
3.3 Building envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
3.3.1 Façades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
3.3.2 Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

vi CIRIA C686
1 Introduction

1.1 Setting the scene

The construction industry contributes some nine per cent of the UK’s GDP, amounting
to around £65 billion investment per annum (National Audit Office and Bourn, 2001).
This is a significant contribution but what is not always appreciated is that the cost of
maintaining and repairing the resulting asset base is about £26 billion. So it is vital for
clients to be provided with assets that may be safely (and economically) maintained and
repaired, and effort should be expended in the early stages of a project to ensure that
design deliberations extend to a consideration of the whole-life requirements of the
facility.

The obligation to consider these matters is already enshrined in law, but it is often not
well done, and there is a lack of practical guidance. For many clients and designers, the
concept of considering and planning for work that will be done on a facility, often long
after its construction, represents nothing less than a cultural shift in work attitudes and
thinking.

The need for safe access for maintenance and repair stems, in the main, from the
interrelated consideration of the statutory responsibilities of those involved, the ever
growing need for containment of cost, the management of risk in a comprehensive way,
and corporate social responsibility, which encompasses sustainability. As is explained in
Section 1.5, there are growing pressures from these sources, which create strong
incentives for improvement.

Those with the responsibility for managing the maintenance and repair of facilities are
likely to find that the organisations who carry out this work, will in future increasingly
demand adequate provision of safe access, or will price extra for suitable mitigating and
controlling measures to compensate for shortfalls in provision. They have their own
statutory obligations, so it is in everyone’s interest to get it right first time.

In this book the term safety is intended to be an inclusive term, covering both health
and safety. The former in particular is often neglected, but represents a major area of
concern, and one that may be significantly avoided or mitigated at the design stage.

1.2 Purpose of this guidance

This guidance has been written to provide practical advice to all those with an ability to
influence the design of safe access for maintenance and repair.

Influencers Maintenance includes

clients designers inspections surveys
specifiers purchasers assessments renewals
facility managers owners repairs
manufacturers contractors

CIRIA C686 1
 This book also has several specific purposes:

1 To help designers discharge their responsibilities through providing compliant but

cost-effective and appropriate access measures.
2 To broaden awareness generally of the importance of appropriate access for
maintenance and repair, as part of a whole-life risk management strategy.
3 To assist clients in understanding the issues, and options available for safe access.
4 To provide a benchmark for future improvements to safe access provision.
5 To encourage feedback from those with experience of maintenance and repair
work, such that this guidance may be updated for the benefit of industry as a
whole.

1.3 Coverage
The guidance is centred around new building structures, but is also intended to be of
use for refurbishment projects. It is geared towards the safe access required for
planned maintenance and repair. This will involve those items of work that, from a risk
management exercise undertaken by designers, are anticipated to occur during the
lifetime of a facility. Sources of reference include manufacturers’ literature, codes of
practice, experience of use and a range of requirements and guidance from the Health
and Safety Executive.

Chapter 1 considers:

 the purpose, scope and coverage of this guidance (Sections 1.2 and 1.3)
 who should read this guidance (Section 1.4)
 why you should read and follow this guidance (Section 1.5)
 the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved (Section 1.6)
 the good practice processes for providing safe access (Section 1.7).

Chapter 2 considers some of the general issues associated with access for maintenance,
for example methods of access, space and environmental work issues.

Chapter 3 provides a series of building element examples to assist designers through

the decision making process. These are sub-divided into the following sections:

 below ground (Section 3.1)

 primary structure (Section 3.2)
 building envelope (Section 3.3)
 building services (Section 3.4).

Chapter 4 deals with work place hazards, for example working at height and manual
handling. It offers practical guidance to designers in addressing these circumstances.

2 CIRIA C686
1.4 Target readership
The guidance should be of interest to all those involved in the built environment,
however it is specifically directed at four groups.

These are:

1 Clients – who have statutory responsibilities in respect of maintenance and repair

works, and will also be interested in the whole-life cost of a facility.
2 Designers – architects and engineers who have statutory and (probably) contractual
responsibilities for aspects of the operational phase of a facility.
3 CDM co-ordinators – who have statutory responsibility to take all reasonable steps to
ensure that designers fulfil their statutory role and that relevant information is
provided.
4 Others – such as owners and facility managers who attract statutory responsibilities
in the operational phase and are in a position to provide valuable feedback on
matters relating to safe access provision.

Clients, in this context, are those parties who hold responsibility for a facility at a
design stage, ie when decisions on matters relating to access are being made.
Depending upon the procurement route chosen (see Section 1.7.3) this could occur at
any time up to completion of the project.

Designers may appear in many guises: design decisions will be made throughout the
project, and well into the construction phase. Responsibility for an area, or item, may
shift from one designer to another as the project progresses.

Typically, designers exist as:

 scheme designers (architects and engineers)

 specialist contractor designers
 plant and equipment specifiers
 specifiers of package components, eg plant rooms.

Specifiers will also include those involved with procurement, if their work involves
stipulating access requirements.

The guidance will also give support to others (owners or facility managers for example)
who have responsibility for existing facilities, and seek advice on what may be required
to bring their access provision up to a recognised standard.

CIRIA C686 3
1.5 Key drivers
There are a number of drivers for considering safe access for maintenance and repair.
Many of these, although originating from separate and unrelated sources, complement
each other creating a logical and persuasive imperative for change.

1.5.1 The business case

Aside from complying with statutory obligations, there is another equally powerful
reason for giving due consideration to safe access. Implicit also within the Constructing
Excellence agenda, the case is simply that if poor provision is made there is an increased
likelihood of:

 civil action by those who may be affected (through accident or ill health), for
example against employers or owners
 extra time to undertake tasks
 the need for extra staff to undertake tasks safely
 extra training
 managers and operatives cutting corners to minimise the time spent working in
adverse conditions
 omission of maintenance or repair activities
 extra costs arising from the shortfall in adequate safety provision
 risk of loss of use
 extra insurance costs arising from sub-standard provision of safe access.
Example 1

A nine-storey building was situated on the corner of a very busy road in the city of
London. A fit-out contractor had broken the inner sheet of the inner layer of laminated
annealed glass. The broken panel was one of the largest on the building, and so one
of the heaviest. It was on the top floor, on a very prominent corner of the building
The fit-out contractor spoke to the original cladding contractor to ask about arranging
a replacement. The glass has to be re-glazed from the outside, it is bonded into a
carrier frame and sits in an interlocking panelized system. The panel is at the corner
of the building and, because of its size, cannot go on the building maintenance cradle.
The building is on one of the main arteries in the City so a road closure for a crane is
out of the question. Replacing the unit will require closing the square to the north of
the building to traffic for a weekend, and will need an 80 tonne crane positioned on
the wrong side of the building to rig a second, 200 tonne crane, also on the wrong
side of the building, to lift the replacement panel over the nine storey development
and lower it into place above a busy (and only partially closed) street.
The estimated cost of supplying and fixing one replacement-glazing panel will be
about £40 000 to £45 000 equivalent to about £5000 per m².

4 CIRIA C686
 Example 2
A school plant room is situated on the roof. Access from the floor below is by a vertical
access ladder, which prevents users from readily carrying loose items such as
clipboards, lamps, or filters. As a result, a second person is needed to assist. The
nature of the vertical access also discourages the school’s facility manager from
visiting the plant room as often as is required.

Example 3
To save money at design stage, a motorised window cleaning gantry was downgraded
to a manually operated version. Once in use it was found that the manual effort to
move the gantry was excessive and the cleaning operation took too long. Also, the
difficulties of rescuing operatives in an emergency were exacerbated by this situation.
The gantry was ultimately changed at a considerable premium compared to the cost
of installing it (to the original specification) at the time of construction.

The importance of the business case is well illustrated by the 1:5:100 rule (Evans et al
1998). The ratios represent, for a typical commercial building (over its life):

1: construction costs
5: maintenance and operational costs
100: business staff costs.

Although these ratios will vary, depending on the nature of the building, the rule
illustrates the importance of paying adequate attention to the creation of an
appropriate inclusive and co-effective maintenance strategy. Decisions made at design
stage will affect the efficiency and continuing costs of the building’s lifespan (eg 50
years).

The 50 year bill

1 5 100

CAPEX OPEX STAFF

land interest rates COSTS
construction insurance recruitment
fees energy salary
finance security overheads
repairs illness
cleaning IT churn

It is not difficult to see why the business case is such a powerful lever. Typically, the cost
of providing access for a frequent maintenance activity accounts for 20–35 per cent of
the overall job cost. Labour costs may account for a further 30 per cent. Careful
thought at the design stage provides opportunity for significant savings and efficiencies.
It is necessary to consider these benefits over the lifespan of the facility as it may be
necessary to increase initial capital outlay (eg by installing a gantry), to realise the
longer-term savings (less time or lower skill level required to complete the task and less
disruption to users).

The 1:5:100 ratio also emphasises the need for maintenance and repair activities to
avoid disruption to the continuing business, through the use of safe, well designed
access.

CIRIA C686 5
 It is well established that the cost of including or installing safe access provision as an
after-thought (either after completion of design or of construction) is significantly more
expensive than when it is done as an integral part of the overall scheme design or
construction. So it makes good business sense to identify an access strategy early in the
project so that appropriate monies may be allocated within the cost plan.

Well designed access for maintenance and repair will allow tasks to be performed in
conditions that encourage quality work, within user-friendly and safe environments.

Example 4
The building services designer decided to specify a remote monitoring system for a
plant room. As a result the need for maintenance contractors to visit the building was
significantly reduced. Although this resulted in a higher capital cost, the saving in
continuing maintenance inspection expenditure was significant. This also benefited
the client in whole-life risk management terms.

1.5.2 Insurance issues

Insurance costs are increasingly becoming an important element of the business case
for good health and safety management and, by inference, specifically in respect of safe
access. The beneficial link between insurance and risk management was raised in the
Revitalising health and safety strategy statement (DETR and HSC, 2000) where it was
reported that “the Insurance Industry has indicated that the introduction of auditable
management standards would assist them in encouraging better health and safety
performance from their customers…” (paragraph 54).

Those seeking general building insurance will need to demonstrate that their risks are
managed and controlled in a structured manner before being able to obtain cover at
commercial rates. Although historically the influence of insurance has not significantly
affected the provision of safe access, in future a more stringent line may well be taken
by insurance companies to protect their position.

This will affect:

 building owners
 maintenance contractors
 tenants with maintenance obligations.

These groups are all exposed to employers and public liability insurance premium
increases, and specifically so if they are involved in facilities with poor access provision.

1.5.3 Statutory obligations

The statutory obligations of those involved in the design of safe access for maintenance
and repair, stem from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. In almost all cases,
the projects requiring these access provisions will also fall under the auspices of the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM2007).

Other health and safety regulations, such as the Workplace Regulations, and Building
Regulations requirements (Part K for instance) will also be relevant when designing for
safe access. Also, the Work at Height Regulations 2005 are of particular relevance to
access issues.

6 CIRIA C686
 A feature of UK legislation in respect of health and safety matters is that a degree of
responsibility is attached to all parties involved in the provision of a facility (and also its
repair and maintenance). This responsibility may not be passed on to others and often
extends over the entire lifespan of the facility.

The nature of the legislative framework is such that, for the most part, it is goal setting.
The appropriate measures to be taken have to be derived on the basis of the specific
circumstances, in accordance with risk management principles, informed by industry
norms and good practice guidance, such that foreseeable risks are eliminated, reduced
or controlled so far as is reasonably practicable.

With regard to the provision of safe access for maintenance and repair, these actions
will involve all those who are involved in the design of facilities. Responsibilities are
considered further in Section 1.6.1 The project team will use these obligations to
eliminate, reduce and control risk as an opportunity to bring a pragmatic and
thorough business orientated approach to their design, and to manage health and
safety risks as well as wider project risk issues.

Point to note
Organisations found guilty of health and safety related offences, now have their details
publicised on the HSE website.

1.5.4 Government and industry initiatives

There are two important government and industry initiatives particularly relevant to
this guidance:

 Revitalising health and safety strategy statement

 Constructing Excellence.

Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement

In June 2000 the DETR published the Government’s ambitious, but necessary, 10-year
plan to improve health and safety within the workplace (DETR and HSC, 2000). This
was promoted in recognition of the significant suffering and cost to organisations, and
also the country, of ill health and accidents at work, and was designed to achieve a step
change in health and safety performance and thinking.

The plan aims for:

 a reduction in the number of working days lost per 100 000 workers from work
related injury and ill health by 30 per cent by 2010
 a reduction in the incidence rate of fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent
by 2010
 a reduction in the incident rate of cases of work related ill health by 20 per cent by
2010
 to achieve half the improvement under each target by 2004.

1 The assessment of safety and risk, albeit in relation to structural safety, has been discussed by SCOSS
(Standing Committee on Structural Safety). The arguments and issues raised however, and illustration of
statutory obligation, are equally applicable to those in relation to risk management of access for maintenance
and repair (SCOSS, 1999).

CIRIA C686 7
 To achieve these aims, all those able to bring influence to bear should do so to enable
the workplace, and its access and egress provision, to become safer than at present.

The emphasis on health is particularly relevant to this guidance as designers can

significantly influence the likelihood of workplace ill health occurring during
maintenance or repair operations. Examples of situations where ill health may be an
issue, if the conditions persist, are given in Section 1.7

Constructing Excellence

Constructing Excellence is the umbrella body charged with overseeing the

implementation of the recommendations from Rethinking construction (Egan, 1998). It
has led to several important initiatives and business aids promoted to help the industry
improve its performance over a wide range of areas. The overall aims of Constructing
Excellence fit well with the philosophy outlined in this guidance and it is commended
to users of this book. Linking with this Accelerating change (Strategic Forum for
Construction, 2002) the Constructing Excellence agenda also highlights three main
themes, which are relevant to this guidance.

These are:

1 Client involvement – clients are urged to play an active role in establishing a

progressive culture within the team, and to create an environment that delivers
excellence in health and safety performance (throughout a facility’s life).
2 Integrating the team – the report emphasises the benefits to be obtained from
integration, and utilising the skills and experience from within the entire supply
chain.
3 People issues – the recognition of people issues is an important element to a
successful project. This subject encompasses a wide range of considerations, but in
relation to maintenance and repair it would include the active goal of achieving a
safe, and healthy work environment.

1.6 Responsibilities
This section gives guidance on the main statutory obligations that arise as a result of
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), and its subordinate legislation. It
also considers the benefit of a good practice approach, and the underlying liabilities
that may accrue if insufficient attention is paid to safe access at an early stage in the
project.

The parties involved providing a safely accessible facility, may attract responsibilities
from a number of sources.

These include:

 a general duty of care

 a code of conduct imposed by professional or trade bodies
 contractual responsibilities
 statutory obligations.

The last two points are very different. Contractual responsibilities will vary from project
to project, and are discussed in connection with procurement strategies in Section

8 CIRIA C686
 1.7.3. Although projects may be procured via numerous contractual routes, statutory
responsibility is largely unaffected, and may not be passed on through these contractual
arrangements.

In considering the responsibilities of those involved, this section groups the parties as
client, designers, CDM co-ordinators and others. Client is as defined in the CDM
Regulations.

1.6.1 Client
The client is in the unique position of being able to set the tone and standards for a
project. Their attitude to health and safety matters, and the importance attached to
whole-life consideration of risk will significantly affect the manner in which the project
progresses. A good practice client will wish to ensure that the project designers have
similar aspirations and beliefs.

The main statutory obligations of clients, which will have a direct bearing upon
effective provision of safe access, include the following.

Ensuring Time invested in an appointment process that accords due

competency weight to a genuine knowledge of health and safety principles
of designers and and working practices, and an understanding of good practice
CDM co-ordinators as exemplified by Constructing Excellence, will pay dividends.

Provision of existing If the project relates to modification/extension of existing

data facilities, the prompt provision of background data (including
existing health and safety files if applicable) will assist the
designers in understanding current provision and shortfalls.
Details of any relevant insurance claims relating to access issues
will also assist.

Where more information is required, a client may be advised to

commission surveys or investigations to assist designers in their
decision making.

Management CDM2007 requires that the clients put in place proper

strategy arrangements to manage their construction projects (see
Regulation 9 and supporting paras 49–54 in the approved code
of practice published in Managing health and safety in construction
(HSE, 2007).

Even for one off clients, or those with no normal involvement in the Construction
Industry, feedback will be of relevance, as improvements made to access provision,
derived from information received, will assist in reducing costs and liabilities in the
future. For those clients who do operate in the built environment, there is everything
to be gained by an open, no blame, transfer of learning experience.

Point to note
Where clients regularly commission buildings, ensure that lessons learned and any
shortfalls discovered are directly fed back into any further projects, and the designers are
made aware of these issues. Further improvements may then be introduced.
Clients’ obligations have been reinforced over the years by important legal judgements,
relating particularly to the competency and monitoring of employed designers and
contractors. With these statutory duties, the client will also gain advantage by ensuring
adequate feedback and briefing.

CIRIA C686 9
1.6.2 Designer
Notwithstanding the importance of all contributors, the designer is important to the
successful provision of safe access. Designers may appear in various guises throughout
the project. In respect of consideration of safe access their general obligations remain
the same, although their contractual role may vary.

Although the CDM regulations do not impose duties on designers in respect of the
maintenance of plant, obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
(HSWA), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and the
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 for example, do impose a
duty to manage risk, in all situations. Also, CDM2007 (Reg 11) specifically requires
designers to consider risks during use and while cleaning and maintaining a structure.
Designers must give consideration to the entire lifespan of a building when making
design decisions. If these are taken in the early stages of a project, they will generally
give greatest scope for choice, while minimising extra cost. For further information on
regulations see Appendix A1.

This figure shows that the earlier the change is made during the project’s life cycle the
easier it is to implement.

The statutory obligations of designers, in respect of safe access considerations, include

the following.

Advising the client of his duties This general obligation is an ideal opportunity to
impress upon the client, not only his statutory
obligations, but also the business benefit of a well
considered access strategy.

Co-operating with other designers This will involve discussions and transfer of
information primarily with the scheme design
team, and specialist designers at later stages.
Access design, proposed by one designer, will
often affect the remit of another.

10 CIRIA C686
 Example 5
To judge the prospective design team member’s commitment to good practice and
health and safety risk management the client visited the design teams offices to be
shown at first hand the approach to other projects. The client also asked for a
presentation on how they intended to improve the project in respect of maintenance
issues.
The client agreed to a survey of access provision on an existing facility that was being
extended. The design team demonstrated that upgrading the whole facility, while
constructing the extension would not only be cost effective, but would protect the
client’s statutory position and show long-term savings in maintenance costs.

Providing safe designs These are derived by utilisation of the risk management
process, outlined in Regulation 11 of CDM2007, designer
duties, in conjunction with other specific Regulations,
British Standards, Building Regulations and good practice,
and should include the development of an access strategy as
part of this process. Designs should take account of the
known key hazards when considering safe access. For an
overview of CDM2007 see Appendix A1.4.

Designers must become familiar with their CDM2007

duties and must be aware of the duty to seek to eliminate
hazards before reducing the level of risk from the
remaining hazards. See also Section 1.7.1 for further
information about risk management.
Example 6

To derive an access strategy for all the façades of a new building the architect
arranged meetings with specialist façade suppliers, hirers of hydraulic platforms and
suppliers of cleaning gantries. By using specialists to review the design at an early
stage it was possible to determine all the crucial aspects of a maintenance strategy,
and to produce an accurate cost plan.

Designers will realise that the derivation of the permanent works design interacts with
that of the design for safe access for maintenance and repair. The two have to be
considered as an integral whole when assessing the overall risk rating and whole-life
costings (see Example 7).
Example 7

The services design for a retail unit refurbishment incorporates an item of plant
attached to the floor soffit within a 1.5 m deep ceiling void.
It is recognised that a standard suspended ceiling grid will not readily permit safe
access over this height. So the services engineer asks the architect to specify a
modified grid structure in that location to enable adequate access to be achieved
from floor level.

Point to note
Façade options have varying requirements in respect of sealant and glazing replacement.
These impinge significantly upon access requirements and interruption to work activities
within offices during replacement operations.
The choice of façade design will take account of access required at ground level, to the
façade face, and from within the building. An upgraded window-cleaning gantry, installed
at the time of construction, may allow some of these activities to be undertaken without
bringing in extra plant.

CIRIA C686 11
 Providing information The provision of information is vital to achieving safe access.
This may relate to:

 deriving an access strategy via individual design

philosophy statements during initial design stages for
comment by the team and approval by the client (see
Section 1.7.2)

 setting out in the tender documents the clear

expectations, limitations and standards expected of any
design requiring further development by others, with
clear demarcations between packages of work

 including in the health and safety file, the final access

strategy, where clarification or design assumptions
would be useful for future reference.

Pertinent questions for designers to ask themselves are:

“If I were the operative maintaining this plant/roof/ etc, what would I want to be
provided to achieve safe working access, in a manner that will not affect my
health?”

“If I were the facilities manager, about to employ contractors to undertake

maintenance work, is it likely that I would be paying a premium due to poorly
thought out access provision?”

1.6.3 CDM co-ordinator contributions to safe access provision

The CDM co-ordinator has statutory duties under CDM2007 that enable significant
value to be added to a project. This should include provision of safe access for post-
construction activities, by ensuring that designers:

 co-operate and co-ordinate their designs, such that the issues relating to safe access
are resolved in an integrated manner throughout the project
 emphasise and realise the commercial and social benefit that pragmatic application
of CDM2007 will bring to a client, along with statutory compliance.

It will often fall to the CDM co-ordinator to provide the client with the broad
overarching arguments for a considered strategy.

Feasibility stage Ensuring the principles of access provision are considered by

the design team and help an agreement with the client.

Detailed design stage Assisting with a written, costed, access strategy by the
designers, based on a risk managed approach, to present to
the client.
Encouraging the use of specialists (regulators, suppliers or
contractors) as advisors where necessary.
Encouraging designers to discuss this access strategy with
those who will maintain the facility, if they are known at this
stage.
Contract preparation Ensuring that the responsibility for the necessary development,
timing, and demarcation, of access proposals by others (eg
specialist subcontractors) has been considered by the designers
and is included within the tender documents.

12 CIRIA C686
 Use of specialist Ensuring that construction phase design, usually by
designers specialist or trade contractors, integrates with the initial
design from a safe access viewpoint and that the final
details are included within the access strategy.

Health and safety file Ensuring that final details of access strategy and provision
are included.

The health and safety file should clarify to future users the designers’ assumptions in
respect of access requirements. The more complex instances are likely to need broad
design philosophy statements assembled into an access strategy (see Section 1.7.2).

This approach does not avoid the need for those undertaking repair or maintenance to
satisfy themselves as to the appropriateness of the suggested methodology, given the
circumstances pertaining at the time. Neither does it prevent them from adopting a
different approach that suits their method of working (providing it is safe to do so and
they are contractually permitted). It does give them a starting point, however, and
confirms to the client that maintenance and repair issues have been thought through.

1.6.4 The role of others

Those with responsibility for implementing or managing the maintenance and repair
process will not usually have any design related function nor any of the associated
statutory obligations (if they do in fact have a design role, they are then designers with
CDM2007 duties as explained in Section 1.6.2). They may fulfil the very useful role of
providing feedback. They will be the closest of all the parties involved to the actual
usage of the access provided.

These parties might typically include the following.

New (downstream) owner* – should endeavour to obtain feedback to ensure that this
informs the next purchase/lease of a facility.

Tenant (insuring and repairing leases) – contract should oblige tenant to provide
feedback to their landlord where work is undertaken by them.

Operator/facilities manager – contract should obligate operators to provide feedback to

owner.

Maintenance contractor – contract should obligate contractor to provide feedback to

their client (and then on, up the supply chain).

* where the project has been sold on or transferred.

Those mentioned above do have other obligations however under the HSWA, and
subordinate legislation. So any shortfall in the safe provision of access must be taken
into account by them when either engaging parties to undertake work, or in its
execution. So it is to their distinct advantage that the provision of access for
maintenance and repair has been properly thought out in the design stage.

CIRIA C686 13
 Sale
Client

Project
team

Completion
New of facility
Facilities
Feedback manager * client

Facilities
Tenant
manager *

Feedback
* not always present Tenant

1.7 Statutory and good practice processes leading to safe

access provision
Safe access provision stems from the application of good practice processes within the
statutory framework.

1.7.1 Risk management

Designers and operators are obliged to apply the principles of risk management when
designing for safe access for maintenance or repair activities. There are many sources
of guidance available on this topic. This document only gives an overview, with the
overriding aim of encouraging a pragmatic, business orientated approach.

There several key hazards likely to occur during maintenance and repair work. A
number of processes may be used during design and operation to assess, reduce and
control these hazards.

Key hazards: accidents

Hazards Concerns

Failure to eliminate the need for work at height where this would have been
possible with pre-planning
Working at height inadequate provision to prevent falling of persons, tools or materials
reliance on personal protective equipment as first choice solution
lack of strategy to rescue persons using fall arrest equipment

unnecessary proximity of electrical items to other plant or work areas

Electricity
use of 240v in external or damp locations

Traffic lack of space to separate pedestrians from vehicle movement

work undertaken in exposed areas (resulting in low or high temperature, rainy

or windy conditions affecting items being handled)
Environment
confined spaces
adjacent hazards

Fire avoidable or remote hot work

14 CIRIA C686
 Key hazards: health

Hazards Concerns

Musculoskeletal poorly designed operational space or the need to lift heavy or awkward items

Noise reliance on ear defenders as first choice solution

Vibration (HAVS) use of vibratory tools

Hazardous presence of materials with potential to cause harm, eg skin defects, breathing
materials difficulties, or toxic contamination.

The principles of prevention and protection

 IDENTIFY the hazards which may be present in the design

 ELIMINATE these hazards as far as is reasonably practicable
 MINIMISE the need for people to work in hazardous conditions
 MINIMISE the level of risk from the remaining hazards, giving collective
measures priority over individual measures.

A flow chart showing how the principles may be applied

Start

Create risk Design feature/

register Identify topic system/item of
plant or material

Understand the access

Identify hazards
risks they pose

• modify the design

Eliminate hazards • modify the planned
Record the where this can access arrangements.
process reasonably be done Eliminating or substituting
lower-risk access hazards

Review risks and

Whole team
consider options

Record
decisions
Make decisions Whole-life

Identify information
Prepare construction • critical design assumptions
for construction
information • significant and unusual
contractors
risks
• useful information
• dos and don’ts
Prepare health • etc.
Identify information Which might not be obvious to
and safety file (or
for future designers competent people.
other document if
and contractors
no file prepared)

CIRIA C686 15
 When deriving the type of access, as part of the risk management process, it is
important to reflect the statutory obligation (so far as is reasonably practicable) to:

Eliminate hazards – this should be the first aim. For example, place the Air Handling
Unit (AHU) at ground level, rather than on the roof, avoiding the need to inspect and
maintain at height.

Combat risk at source – introduce permanent non-slip walkway material across the
roof, rather than rely on de-icing salt application or warnings to take care.

Provide collective preventative measures – provide guardrails to the workplace, at the

edge of the roof, rather than rely on safety lines and harnesses.

Provide individual protective measures – for example, safety lines and harnesses,
gloves, facemasks. The use of personal protective equipment should always be the last
choice.

It is a requirement of CDM2007 to consider the options in the order given. Failure to

do this will lead to non-compliance with Regulation 11 of CDM2007 and may also
result in an uneconomic design when considered from a whole-life standpoint.
Designers should also note that all contractors must carry out their own risk
assessments before starting work. This may lead to expensive temporary access being
provided and/or retrofitting of safe access systems, both during construction and later if
insufficient thought has been given at the design stage.

Designers should be alert to the danger of inadvertently introducing a further

significant risk in the attempt to deal with a previously identified one.

The following suggestions are given to aid the process of effective risk management.

Methodology There is great advantage in undertaking the evaluation and

management of risk through team meetings where a number of
people may contribute. In this fashion, there is less likelihood of items
falling between two stools and a broad, comprehensive approach may
be taken. Group discussion, with the main points recorded and
circulated, provides a rapid, practical and useful means of satisfying
the requirements of CDM2007 for the parties to co-operate with
others and co-ordinate their work.

Differentiation The designer needs to have sufficient experience to appreciate the

issues that are important, and which may be influenced and
improved, without getting overwhelmed by the insignificant.

Site wide Designers need to be aware that site wide issues are as important as
approach those relating directly to the element of facility being maintained or
repaired. For example:
 Will it be necessary to close an adjacent road?
 Will the activity interfere with adjacent tenants?
 Is there sufficient space surrounding the facility to place a
crane/cherry picker etc?
 Is there an interface with the public?

16 CIRIA C686
 Recording Although the CDM regulations do not require the recording of risk
management processes made by designers, it is considered good
practice to do so. Such action will allow reference back at a future
stage and will enable a designer to demonstrate that the task was
accomplished, in accordance with most QA procedure requirements.

Outputs The majority of the output will feature as part of the design itself, for
example the decision to use a stairway as opposed to a vertical ladder.
Other outputs will be in the form of a design philosophy statement, ie
“this is how we see the task being done” to avoid/mitigate and control
risk. These need to feature as part of the project access strategy
document (see Section 1.7.2).
Example 8

The building services engineer called a team meeting to discuss safe access to the
plant room for removal of a boiler and generator. The whole team were able to
contribute to the various facets of the strategy, for example architect (demountable
wall to allow removal of components and layout of hard landscaping below to allow
crane access), structural engineer (structural framing revised to allow wall to be
removed, and local strengthening of roof to accommodate new generator), services
engineer (review of orientation of plant to allow sufficient room for manoeuvre and
easy access to shut off valves). This produced an integrated strategy and allowed
risks to be eliminated, minimised or controlled. The plant replacement strategy was
documented within the health and safety file.

1.7.2 Design processes

The active, and continuing attention to safe access issues, throughout the design stages,
is not always achieved as designers’ attention often concentrates on what are perceived
to be more immediate concerns. This section is provided to assist in ensuring that safe
access is properly considered.

Whole-life risk management

Designers are obligated to consider health and safety issues over the entire lifespan of a
facility. It is by considering the big picture, ie by taking a comprehensive approach to
risk management, that improved flexibility and extra options present themselves. For
example an access solution that might involve what appears to be a high capital cost (eg
a stairway compared to a vertical ladder), may result in lower maintenance costs over
the lifespan (as no hoist will be required and fewer restrictions need be placed on
persons using a ladder). Designers, supported by CDM co-ordinators, will need to
explain and illustrate to clients the benefits of taking the broader view.
Example 9

The initial design for a 2.0 m diameter services tunnel included a number of 600 mm
diameter access points. While this was convenient from a design perspective, on
further examination it was realised that it would result in the need for an involved
maintenance procedure utilising escape winches and harnesses in case of an
incident. The designers realised that by enlarging the access points to rectangular
slots, not only was specialist equipment unnecessary, but replacement materials and
other items could be placed more easily, reducing the time needed to complete
remedial tasks.

CIRIA C686 17
 Information flows and gateways

Use of project based risk management will also ensure the comprehensive
dissemination of information throughout the team. The transfer of information,
between team members (horizontal communication) and then through the supply chain
(vertical communication) is essential to success. This may be likened to a matrix
structure, and the use of a documented access strategy is strongly recommended as a tool
to achieve this, allowing:

 the client to understand the liabilities and requirements of maintenance and repair
over the lifespan of the facility
 those undertaking the work (or specialists acting in an advisory role if needed) to
confirm the suitability of the proposals
 information to be passed on to contractors where there is a later design/build
element
 the design life, and maintenance regime assumed, (to be identified for designs
carried out in accordance with the Structural Eurocodes (BS EN 1990:2002)).

On complex projects it may be worth appointing a specialist consultant to prepare or

review the access strategy.

The use of gateways, promulgated by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC,

2001), and more recently by the Strategic Forum (Strategic Forum for Construction,
2002) is an effective tool for the client, project manager or lead designer to use as a
check before advancing into the next project stage. In respect of safe access provision,
these gateways might consist of the following:

18 CIRIA C686