Scaffolding on Right of Way

dottiec

BarelySentientAI said:

You might find this document useful - if you haven't already seen it.

https://nasc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASC_SG34-17.pdf

I haven't seen this so thank you very much for pointing it out.  I've read the first page and it appears to be saying the same as me re what is required to provide a safe environment.  I feel less paranoid now.  Well, that's this morning taken care of as I trawl through the rest of it.  Thanks again.

Section62

dottiec said:

Section62 said:

I am attaching a photo.  I am meeting the builder to discuss things on Sunday so it would help if you could give me your opinion on which type of scaffolding would be suitable, if any.  Vehicles do need some manoeuverability to drive onto the main road, particularly when turning left, because of oncoming traffic.  I don't think it is safe to keep the road open with scaffolding up and the residents will not agree to close the road.  We could probably manage as I don't drive now and my son can bike to work but the others all have large SUV type vehicles.  

It is the kind of situation where a bridging scaffold would be better in terms of maintaining access.  However, from the picture it looks like the eaves height of the building is quite low, so it may be there isn't sufficient height for a bridging scaffold to give safe and adequate headroom under whilst achieving a working platform height suitable for the job.

The safety of the scaffold is primarily the scaffolder's responsibility.  They need to be insured for damage to third-party property, and need to be aware (if they aren't) that people other than their client use the access road on foot and by vehicle.  One possibility might be to arrange the scaffold and work so the section nearest the road can be finished with and removed asap to minimise the length of time the access road is restricted at the most critical point.  This would involve more hassle and cost for the builder/scaffolder, so don't be surprised if they agree to it, only to 'forget' what was agreed.

dottiec

Section62 said:

dottiec said:

Section62 said:

I am attaching a photo.  I am meeting the builder to discuss things on Sunday so it would help if you could give me your opinion on which type of scaffolding would be suitable, if any.  Vehicles do need some manoeuverability to drive onto the main road, particularly when turning left, because of oncoming traffic.  I don't think it is safe to keep the road open with scaffolding up and the residents will not agree to close the road.  We could probably manage as I don't drive now and my son can bike to work but the others all have large SUV type vehicles.  

It is the kind of situation where a bridging scaffold would be better in terms of maintaining access.  However, from the picture it looks like the eaves height of the building is quite low, so it may be there isn't sufficient height for a bridging scaffold to give safe and adequate headroom under whilst achieving a working platform height suitable for the job.

The safety of the scaffold is primarily the scaffolder's responsibility.  They need to be insured for damage to third-party property, and need to be aware (if they aren't) that people other than their client use the access road on foot and by vehicle.  One possibility might be to arrange the scaffold and work so the section nearest the road can be finished with and removed asap to minimise the length of time the access road is restricted at the most critical point.  This would involve more hassle and cost for the builder/scaffolder, so don't be surprised if they agree to it, only to 'forget' what was agreed.

This is my worry ie they'll conveniently forget about what we might have agreed and the whole scaffolding unit will remain there for 6 months or more.  What I need is for someone to come out, say Highways, to assess the situation before anything is done but I'm unsure if this is in their remit, but I will ask.  Another point I shall raise is if it's only ridge tiles being replaced (which is what he said when I asked him and he brushed me off) then these can be accessed safely from the parking area of the property next door to his building (looking at the photo, to the right which you can't see).  With permission from that property owner no-one would be put at risk or inconvenienced.  When I originally suggested that he did this first to assess whether the roof had further hidden problems he brushed me off again saying they wouldn't do that as they wanted it all doing at once.  I am thinking of insisting this is done before giving my permission.  Do you think this is unreasonable?

dottiec

So I have phoned the Highways Dept who have said they don't get involved unless the scaffolding is on the pavement.  They said to check out the scaffolding company and that they have the correct licences(?) and also  said it is my responsibility as land owner to get a risk assessment and scaffolding plan.  

dottiec

Well, I met with the Builder today.  Very difficult as he doesn't listen, talks over you etc etc.  I would not expect this from a 45 ish year who advertises as having a BSc degree.  His gungo attitude to Health and Safety is unbelievable.  He needs permission to put up the scaffolding from the owner of next door to him and from us as we own the private road ie owners on both sides of his property.  He says he has permission from next door and I asked if that was from the owner and he said he had spoken to someone and they said it was OK.  I told him I believe the property is rented out, possibly HMO, and that he needed the owner's permission,  He said that had nothing to do with me and I agreed.  When I thought about it afterwards, someone posting on this thread said scaffolder and roofer's insurance would become invalid if permission is not granted.  Does anyone know whether a tenant's permission is admissable or whether the owner's permission is required.  If the actual owner has not been asked and given permisssion, and the insurance is invalid would that only apply to that side of the property or will invalidation also apply to our side, if we give permission. Sorry this is so long and convoluted but I feel I need to get this right.  I am so fed up with it.  

We discussed a sketch with dimensions as our entrance is so tight - he said he had driven down it himself and it would be fine.  I said it would be impossible for me to do that as I don't know the width of the scaffolding.  He seems this verbal shout-outs are sufficient for me to agree.  He has said he will provide a drawing/sketch.

Interestingly, when I asked for something in return for all of my concessions ie for our street sign to remain on his wall, he wouldn't commit himself and "I'm not signing anything".  Boot on the other foot and all that!  That will now have to become a condition.

This forum has been a fantastic help to me by raising things I would never have thought of - like invalidation of insurance.  I do always do research before acting on these pointers so there is no onus on anyone giving me their opinion.

Any help much appreciated.  

sheramber

dottiec said:

Well, I met with the Builder today.  Very difficult as he doesn't listen, talks over you etc etc.  I would not expect this from a 45 ish year who advertises as having a BSc degree.  His gungo attitude to Health and Safety is unbelievable.  He needs permission to put up the scaffolding from the owner of next door to him and from us as we own the private road ie owners on both sides of his property.  He says he has permission from next door and I asked if that was from the owner and he said he had spoken to someone and they said it was OK.  I told him I believe the property is rented out, possibly HMO, and that he needed the owner's permission,  He said that had nothing to do with me and I agreed.  When I thought about it afterwards, someone posting on this thread said scaffolder and roofer's insurance would become invalid if permission is not granted.  Does anyone know whether a tenant's permission is admissable or whether the owner's permission is required.  If the actual owner has not been asked and given permisssion, and the insurance is invalid would that only apply to that side of the property or will invalidation also apply to our side, if we give permission. Sorry this is so long and convoluted but I feel I need to get this right.  I am so fed up with it.  

We discussed a sketch with dimensions as our entrance is so tight - he said he had driven down it himself and it would be fine.  I said it would be impossible for me to do that as I don't know the width of the scaffolding.  He seems this verbal shout-outs are sufficient for me to agree.  He has said he will provide a drawing/sketch.

Interestingly, when I asked for something in return for all of my concessions ie for our street sign to remain on his wall, he wouldn't commit himself and "I'm not signing anything".  Boot on the other foot and all that!  That will now have to become a condition.

This forum has been a fantastic help to me by raising things I would never have thought of - like invalidation of insurance.  I do always do research before acting on these pointers so there is no onus on anyone giving me their opinion.

Any help much appreciated.  

ie for our street sign to remain on his wall

Does the builder own the building  being renovated?

dottiec

Yes, the builder does own the property.  The local authority provided and placed the sign on the wall with the verbal permission of the previous owner who we had a good relationship with.  If we had to move it onto steel posts in the ground it would further restrict the entrance width.

Section62

dottiec said:

Yes, the builder does own the property.  The local authority provided and placed the sign on the wall with the verbal permission of the previous owner who we had a good relationship with.  If we had to move it onto steel posts in the ground it would further restrict the entrance width.

If this is what would be described as a 'street name plate' then the local authority has powers to put them on buildings and there are penalties for the unauthorised removal/defacement of them.

It is possible the "verbal permission" could have been replaced with a notice that the work would be done had the informal 'permission' not been granted.

The law on street name plates varies around the country so you'd need to check the specifics of what applies in your area.  The Public Health Act 1925 is the one which applies to much of England, excluding the London postal area.

bobster2

Section62 said:

dottiec said:

Yes, the builder does own the property.  The local authority provided and placed the sign on the wall with the verbal permission of the previous owner who we had a good relationship with.  If we had to move it onto steel posts in the ground it would further restrict the entrance width.

If this is what would be described as a 'street name plate' then the local authority has powers to put them on buildings and there are penalties for the unauthorised removal/defacement of them.

Is this the same for a private road??

But in any case - quibbling about whether the name plate is on posts or on the wall - is quibbling over a matter of a few cms. I would recommend OP stays focused on the scaffolding - without bringing in lots of minor details.

Section62

bobster2 said:

Section62 said:

dottiec said:

Yes, the builder does own the property.  The local authority provided and placed the sign on the wall with the verbal permission of the previous owner who we had a good relationship with.  If we had to move it onto steel posts in the ground it would further restrict the entrance width.

If this is what would be described as a 'street name plate' then the local authority has powers to put them on buildings and there are penalties for the unauthorised removal/defacement of them.

Is this the same for a private road??

The legislation covers "street(s)", so not limited to highways maintained at public expense.  There is a public interest in all roads and streets being properly identified - for example so the emergency services can find them quickly.  The responsibility is one for the local authority and not the highway authority because the powers and responsibilities go beyond highways maintained at public expense.

bobster2 said:

But in any case - quibbling about whether the name plate is on posts or on the wall - is quibbling over a matter of a few cms. I would recommend OP stays focused on the scaffolding - without bringing in lots of minor details.

I don't think it would be "quibbling".

The local authority appear to have put up a street name plate at the expense of the public (or the people living on this side road).  The builder shouldn't interfere with it without the consent of the LA.

If the builder removes it then the cost of a replacement would fall on the public (or the people living on the side road), and a low-level sign would be more vulnerable to damage and defacement than one placed at a higher level on the building (which is presumably what the LA have done) and therefore would be more of an issue than just "a few cms".