Προηγούμενη σελίδα

Συνεδρίαση 22 Ιουνίου 2005, Βρυξέλλες

ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ

Work group health & safety

First meeting

Venue:

Offices of the ACE
29 Rue Paul Emile Janson, Brussels 1050
Date: 22nd June 2005
Time: 10h30 to 16h30

Present:
John Graby                Chairman – RIAI
Jean-Marie Fauconnier       CNOA(B)
Johan Rutgeerts       CNOA(B)
Adrian Joyce             ACE
Excused:
Tanja Linke               BAK

1.0 Introductions

1.1 Membership of the Work Group
A Joyce reported that there have been commitments from Malta and the UK to nominate persons to the Work Group.  He further reported that there have been nominations from Portugal (Pedro Guilherme and Fernando Goncalves) and from Germany (Tanja Linke).  Therefore the full WG has 8 members.

1.2 Objectives (Terms of Reference)

J Graby introduced the overall objectives of the Work Group referring to the agreed terms of reference.  Those present gave their views of the importance of the role of the architect and the discussion highlighted the fact that, beyond the laws that have been implemented to transpose the Mobile Sites Directive, the architect has a responsibility to ensure that the designs that he devises are designed with safety in mind.
There was a discussion about whether or not it should principally be the responsibility of the architect or the contractor.  J-M Fauconnier highlighted the possible conflict of interest that can arise where the co-ordinator is part of the contractor’s firm.  A Joyce said that this raised a fundamental question as to whether or not there should be a separate profession that co-ordinates the full H&S issues that arise in each project.
J Graby highlighted the fact that there are very few regulations or guidance for architects in the execution of the role of co-ordinator.  J-M Fauconnier brought up the question of design and build saying that, maybe, there should be a builder involved in the design, not to say that he supports design and build, but that the expertise of the builder is available to the designer.
J Rutgeerts referred to the strict Belgian regulations in relation to fire that have severely restricted the way that the architect can work.  He expressed the view that regulating H&S could also result in such restrictions and so he urged caution in the way that the work of the WG proceeds.
J Graby, in agreeing, said that he believed that the WG should address broad principles and therefore avoid this risk.

2.0 European Construction Safety Forum (ECSF)

2.1 Background – Report of First Meeting

J Graby reported on the background of the ECSF that arose from the work of the OSHA in the year of safety in construction and he reported that the ACE had agreed to be involved so as to ensure that the impact for designers and clients will be carefully considered and based on research.
J Graby reported that the unregulated market was much discussed at the first meeting of the ECSF and this led to the idea that there should be guidelines for clients on H&S and that the ACE has undertaken to prepare a framework for client guidelines for submission to the next meeting of the ECSF (13th July 2005)
J-M Fauconnier stated that he believes that, if H&S is well managed throughout the design and construction process and by the contractor in an integrated way, that ultimately the implementation of good H&S in construction is not costly.  On the contrary, if it is taken out and considered as a separate issue, then it is becomes an additional cost to all projects.

2.2 The Bilbao Declaration

The Declaration was the culmination of the OSHA year of safety in construction and has been the motivation for the establishment of the ECSF.  However there were some other actions undertaken including the publication of a book that brought together 16 case studies of how the Member States co-ordinate H&S in construction.  It was felt that it might give a good framework for the work of the group.

2.3 The role of the ACE in the ECSF

J Graby asked if the WG agree that the ACE should be involved in discussions on the issues of H&S with the other organisations in the ECSF.  His own view is that it should.  J Rutgeerts queried whether there was an overview of the different situations in Europe on the implementation of the Mobile Sites Directive.  J-M Fauconnier replied that he is a member of a Belgian organisation that is a member of a European organisation that has some information on this question.  He suggested that the president of the Belgian organisation should be invited to the next meeting of the WG to report on this aspect.
J Graby suggested that a simple one-page survey of the ACE delegates at the next Assembly should be undertaken so as to quickly and effectively produce a broad picture of the situation.  This idea was agreed to by those present.

2.4 Designing for Safety

2.4.1 Presentation of Irish document
J Graby referred in particular to Appendix 3 of the Irish document that shows the few areas where designers can have a real influence.  In reality they are very limited and so a similar approach for clients could be a useful approach.  He went on to report that Irish Contractors had responded positively to the appendix saying that having the general duties listed is very helpful to give clarity to them as to their responsibility.
2.4.2 Presentation of other examples (UK, Belgium …)
J-M Fauconnier reported that, in Belgium, there is an information sheet that the Ministry of Works sends out to clients when they apply for a planning permission.  An example was handed to J Graby for information.  He went on to report that there is a form of contract, prepared by ARCO (Belgian insurance company for architects) that sets out the clients duties.  He undertook to circulate a copy to the members of the group.
There was a general discussion on the approach taken in Belgium to co-ordinate H&S on sites in which the shortcomings related to the market reality that fees charged are very small and therefore it is impossible to properly execute the role.  J-M Fauconnier highlighted the difference between co-ordination and supervision of H&S.
J Graby said that, in Ireland, there has been research on the frequency of accidents and their location.  This has found that accidents occur more frequently the further the site is from the capital city and generally on unregulated sites.
2.4.3 Viability of preparing European document
J Graby proposed two starting points for the work.  Is it fair to expect clients to know about health and safety issues or not?  Depending on the view adopted, the starting point will be different.  A Joyce expressed the view that it is not reasonable to expect clients to know, in-depth, the issues that surround H&S in construction and that this should be the starting point.  He also expressed the view that there should be balance across the roles and liabilities of the various partners in the project in relation to H&S.
One factor that is not adequately understood in the debate about the architects role is the fact that there is actually very little on which the architect can have a direct influence and this must be set out as precisely as possible.  However it was felt that there is a responsibility that the architect bears in relation to the maintenance of a building and a need to differentiate between professional maintenance and non-professional maintenance.  J-M Fauconnier recalled that the EU Directive is about safety and health of workers only.

3.0 Guidelines for Clients

3.1 Discussion on possible contents

The legal obligations of the client should be set down and the manner in which they should discharge those duties described.  Clients should be advised that there should be a contract agreed with the co-ordinator that establishes the duties of each party to the contract and the way in which the objectives are to be achieved.
J Graby outlined the fact that there are two types of clients that need to be addressed.  The first is the person who builds once, maybe twice in their lifetime and the second is the corporation or business that builds time and time again and government or public clients.  The question arises as to whether or not both need guidelines and, if so, what should they contain.
The guidelines should take account of different types of projects, in particular the differences between new build and renovation.  J-M Fauconnier suggested that there should be a list or tale of the different types of clients with whom the architect has contact and the role that the architect has in relation to each one and the role (or duties) that each client type should fulfil.

4.0 ACE Input for next ECSF Meeting (13th July)

4.1 Proposal for guidelines for designers

It was agreed that it would be useful to discuss who is the client that we are referring to in the work of the ECSF.  There are at least two types and their knowledge base is different.  In simple terms the guidelines should speak of what the clients must do in relation to H&S.  A debate on whether the guidelines should address the highest number of sites or the highest value of works would also be useful.
There was also a suggestion that the definition of design in relation to H&S in the construction sector should be debated and set down.  This should then allow for a realistic attribution of the liabilities of each designer.
A Joyce spoke about buildability and recalled that there was a view expressed at the first ECSF meeting tat architects should not design “unbuildable” buildings.  He said that he believed that this view must be resisted; to pursue this thinking would stifle innovation and lead to an impoverishment of the quality of the built environment.  J Graby highlighted the fact that the design phase involves a number of different designers and that architects may or may not be a big part of that process.  In fact the main interest for the architect could be arguably stated to be the completed building only and the way it fulfils the needs of the client over the service life of the building.
J-M Fauconnier brought up the question of the responsibility of the client in the maintenance phase of buildings and the role of the architect (or designer?) in delivering information on what needs to be done over the life of the building.  He recalled that the Directive relates exclusively to the Safety and Health of workers on constructions only.  Therefore the European guidelines should concentrate on the same framework.
J Graby suggested that an advance on the issue of guidelines for designers will have to be pursued with the engineers.

4.2 Proposal for guidelines for clients

It was decided to bring the content of the debate of the meeting to the ECSF in an abbreviated form.  The objective should be to raise the issues and to sound out the other partners on those issues with a view to reaching a consensus on what should be said about clients and what form any guidelines should take.

4.3 Other suggestions

J Graby said that he would like to present to the meeting the analysis of the Irish Study on fatal accidents and to expose its contents and the criticism of its methodology.

5.0 ACE Charter on Health & Safety

5.1 Should the ACE develop a Charter?

The view was that a Charter is too restrictive and that guidelines would be more flexible and adaptable for the Membership of the ACE was expressed.  J Graby suggested that it should be an ACE policy on the subject. 

5.2 What should it contain?

It was decided that any such statement or policy should contain a set of general principles to which the architectural profession can commit in relation to the topic of H&S.  It was agreed that it would be prepared with a target date for adoption of the First General Assembly in 2006.
In its contents it could contain a statement that H&S, for architects, is an ethical issue and not a technical one.

6.0 Any Other Business

J-M Fauconnier brought up the idea that all actors should have their own guidelines for how to implement good H&S practices in the construction sector.  Then there could be a comparison of the different roles so as to draw a global picture for the benefit of all.
J Rutgeerts brought up the question of education and the need to ensure that architects are properly prepared for the roles that they will have to fulfil when in practice.  He said that he believes the teaching of H&S is an ethical issue and not one of regulation.  J Graby said that he believes that this will be a big issue and will link to the Bologna Process and the way in which it can be demonstrated that students that take different cycles in different countries have achieved the full range of skills listed in the qualifications directive.
J-M Fauconnier raised the topic of the ETP on Industrial Safety, reporting that at the launch there was no strong interest in having a strand for construction.  It is therefore concentrating on industrial processes, particularly in the chemical industry.
J Graby raised the issue of health in H&S and the fact that it is a major factor that often does not receive enough attention.  He queried to what extent the WG should address the issues raised.  In particular there was attention given to the extent to which the architect can influence health through the role as specifier of products and materials for buildings.  It was agreed that some attention should be given to the subject.
A Joyce reported on the work of other WG’s in these subjects such as the Focus Area (FA) on Quality of Life in the ECTP that covers safety on sites and the work of the WGESA on materials and standardisation.  This last WG is looking at the issue of whether or not architects should rely on Environmental Product Declarations as the basis on which they make decisions on materials.  It was agreed that the WG should remain informed of what is going on in other WG’s and in the FA of the ECTP.  On this last point A Joyce undertook to look up the current status of the work in the FA and to circulate it to the WG.

7.0 Date and Location of Next Meeting

7.1 5th October 2005 at 10h30 in the offices of the ACE, Brussels.

8.0 Summary of Agreed Actions

The following actions were agreed at the meeting:

Prepared on 21st June 2005

Αρχή σελίδας