Every new ‘All Lane Running’ (ALR) motorway will open with technology in place to spot stopped or broken-down vehicles quickly, while all existing ALR motorways will have the technology fitted six months earlier than originally planned, the government has said.
The pledge comes as Highways England publishes the Smart motorways stocktake first year progress report 2021 setting out the progress it has made against an action plan published last year to boost safety and backed by a £500 million investment. The first-year progress report includes commitments to speed up the completion of safety measures, as well as the latest safety data.
ALR motorways – which don’t have hard shoulders – are fitted with technology and features not seen on conventional motorways, such as set-back emergency areas, and red X signs on gantries to close live lanes. Radar detection to spot stopped vehicles is also being rolled out.
To accelerate improvements, by the end of September 2022, Highways England will:
Work to update the Highway Code to provide more guidance about driving on ALR motorways will also be bought forward and is due to be published this year, ahead of schedule.
Data from the progress report, covering the five years from 2015 to 2019 inclusive, shows that ALR motorways are one of the safest types of road in the country. Drivers on a conventional motorway are 33% more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than drivers on an ALR motorway.
The data also demonstrates that the fatality rate on strategic road network A roads is three and a half times that on ALR motorways.
The figures have been compiled on a 5-year basis because single-year figures are too low and fluctuate too much to draw conclusions from. For the year 2019, there were 9 fatalities on ALR motorways, one less than in 2018, and a total of 15 fatalities on motorways without a permanent hard shoulder, four more than in 2018.
The increase in fatalities in 2019 was accounted for by so-called ‘Dynamic Hard Shoulder’ motorways, where the hard shoulder operates only part-time. All these motorways are being withdrawn and replaced with ALR motorways.
Despite the data, it is known, says the government, that drivers can feel less safe driving along motorways without a hard shoulder, which is why Highways England is pressing ahead to provide reassurance and boost safety measures.
This is valid as of 30th April 2021.
Driving is a large cause of work accidents and something that can be easily prevented. Small things such as removing distractions and limiting fatigue can reduce driving accidents. To find out more about how to combat this, download our directors briefing. There have been no specific safety concerns identified with any brand of coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines in relation to pregnancy, says Public Health England.
Real-world data from the United States shows that around 90,000 pregnant women have been vaccinated, mainly with mRNA vaccines including Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, without any safety concerns being raised.
Based on this data, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that it’s preferable for pregnant women in the UK to be offered the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines where available. There is no evidence to suggest that other vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women, but more research is needed.
The advice, published in Public Health England’s Green Book, a clinical professional guide for vaccinators in the UK, still advises that pregnant women should discuss the risks and benefits of vaccination with their clinician, including the latest evidence on safety and which vaccines they should receive.
Professor Wei Shen Lim, COVID-19 Chair for JCVI, said: “We encourage pregnant women to discuss the risks and benefits with their clinician – those at increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 are encouraged to promptly take up the offer of vaccination when offered.
“There have been no specific safety concerns from any brand of COVID-19 vaccines in relation to pregnancy.
“There is more real-world safety data from the US in relation to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in women who are pregnant – therefore, we advise a preference for these to be offered to pregnant women.”
All vaccines being used in the UK have undergone robust clinical trials and have met the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)’s strict standards of safety, effectiveness and quality.
Dr Mary Ramsay, Head of Immunisation at Public Health England (PHE), said: “The available data on the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provides confidence that they can be offered safely to pregnant women.
“The COVID-19 vaccines continue to save thousands of lives and it is important that we encourage as many people as possible to take up the offer when it is their turn.”
Dr Edward Morris, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), said: “We are grateful to the JCVI for taking into consideration our evidence and updating the guidance around the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy.
“Vaccination offers pregnant women the best protection from COVID-19, which can be serious in some women.
“We believe it should be a woman’s choice whether to have the vaccine or not after considering the benefits and risks and would encourage pregnant women to discuss with a trusted source like their GP, obstetrician or midwife, or a healthcare professional in a vaccination centre.
“This move will empower all the pregnant women in the UK to make the decision that is right for them, at the same time that the non-pregnant population in their age group receive protection from COVID-19.”
Data shows that vaccines are effective in protecting people from serious illness from COVID-19. Though uncommon, severe illness due to COVID-19 is more likely in later pregnancy. Pregnant women who do get symptomatic COVID-19 infection are 2 to 3 times more likely to give birth to their baby prematurely.
The greatest risk factor for severe outcomes from COVID-19 is age, which is why pregnant women should be invited for vaccination along with their age or clinical risk group.
Women who are planning pregnancy, are in the immediate postpartum, or are breastfeeding can be vaccinated with any vaccine, depending on their age and clinical risk group.
The JCVI will continue to closely monitor the evidence on COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and will update its advice as required.
This is valid as of 29th April 2021.
The "New Normal" has been a hard adjustment for us all and forced us into new situations. If you notice that some of your employees are struggling but don't know where to start, then watch our free webinar. Our speakers will provide you with some key action points that you can use that not only help in the short-term but will be beneficial in the future. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has appointed two experts to lead an independent review of the system for testing construction products. Former government adviser and construction expert Paul Morrell OBE will be the chair of the independent panel, along with legal expert Anneliese Day QC.
The review, announced earlier this year, will examine how to strengthen the current system for testing construction products to provide confidence that these materials are safe and perform as marketed.
The review forms part of the government’s programme of work to reform and strengthen building safety regulation and comes after testimony to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry exposed evidence of testing irregularities and potential gaming of the system by some manufacturers.
Housing Secretary Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP said: “The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has heard deeply concerning suggestions that some construction product manufacturers may have gamed the system for testing these materials and compromised the safety of residents.
“We are taking these allegations very seriously and will await the Inquiry’s final recommendations – but it is clear that action is needed now to ensure products used on buildings always meet the highest safety standards.
“I am pleased to appoint Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day QC to lead this independent review of the system for testing construction products that will build on the significant progress we have already made to make buildings safer.”
The panel will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to seek their views on how the system of safety testing of construction products could be improved and will report later this year with recommendations.
The government has already announced that a new National Regulator for Construction Products will be established within the Office of Product Safety and Standards and be given powers to remove any product from the market that presents a significant safety risk; and prosecute and fine any company that breaks the rules.
These measures form part of the government’s wider, ambitious reform of the sector, which includes the draft Building Safety Bill, that will bring the biggest improvements to building safety standards in 40 years and strengthen the regulation of construction products.
This is valid as of 28th April 2021.
What you’ll get: Consideration of a Commons amendment to the Fire Safety Bill took place in the House of Lords on 20 April. The Bill was returned to the Commons for consideration of Lords amendments.
The government was defeated for a third time in the Lords over its plans for who pays for fire safety work on buildings in light of the Grenfell tragedy. Peers changed the Fire Safety Bill again to prevent owners of blocks of flats passing the costs for remedial work on to leaseholders.
They argued a government grants and loan scheme should be in place first. The government says the changes are “inappropriate and unworkable”.
Peers voted by a majority of 86 to reinsert provisions to shield residents from having to foot the bill for safety improvements. A previous attempt by them to introduce the changes was rejected by MPs in March.
The Fire Safety Bill was brought forward to strengthen regulations following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 which killed 72 people.
There has been an intense debate about who should pick up the costs for works such as changes to emergency exits, after inspections found many other flats were covered in combustible cladding.
Housing, Communities and Local Government minister, Lord Greenhalgh, opened the debate by telling peers it was “time to accept the will of the democratic chamber”.
He said MPs had twice rejected the moves to change the legislation and he warned it would “ultimately cost lives” if the legislation was further delayed.
He added that ministers had brought forward an “unprecedented” package of support to “alleviate the burden” on leaseholders.
In February, the government announced it was putting £3.5bn towards removing unsafe cladding from buildings more than 18m high – on top of £1.6bn for cladding removal announced last year.
It said flat owners in lower-rise blocks would be able to access loans to cover repair work and repayments would be capped at £50 a month. But the schemes – which take the form of grants and loans – have not been introduced yet and flat owners say they still face costs of up to £50,000 for other works and insurance premiums.
The Bill will now return to the Commons again in what is known as parliamentary “ping pong” – the term used when legislation goes back and forth between the Commons and Lords as they reject each others’ changes.
This is valid as of 27th April 2021.
Five individuals have been arrested following an investigation by the Environment Agency into large-scale waste crime activity.
The enforcement action took place at five separate addresses located in Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
Investigators from the Environment Agency were supported by police officers from Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Police forces who made the arrests and enabled evidence gathering as part of the investigation into illegal burying of waste at six sites across Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Buckinghamshire.
The investigation will now continue with the evidence seized and is expected to continue for several months.
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “The Environment Agency takes waste crime extremely seriously and we will persistently pursue those suspected of illegal waste activities.
“Illegal waste activity damages the environment and diverts money from legitimate businesses and at the Environment Agency we do everything we can to bring those responsible to account.”
Sergeant Andy Scruton from the Nuneaton Safer Neighbourhood Team said: “The illegal disposal of waste is a blight on our communities and we will always work hard with our partners in the Environment Agency to tackle it.”
This is valid as of 26th April 2021.
Driving is a large cause of work accidents and something that can be easily prevented. Small things such as removing distractions and limiting fatigue can reduce driving accidents. To find out more about how to combat this, download our directors briefing. A rogue trader has been jailed for allowing thousands of tonnes of waste – including hazardous material – to be illegally deposited at a site in Somerset.
Mark Foley, of Cardiff, was jailed for 2 years and 3 months for illegally disposing of 100,000 tonnes of waste at Stowey Quarry, a former limestone quarry near Chew Valley reservoir. The offence happened within the first nine months of 2016, sparking an intensive investigation by the Environment Agency into the management of the site.
The illegal operation, which accepted waste from around England, was described at Bristol Crown Court as one of the most serious risks of harm in the country during the past 30 years. Foley was also jailed for a further 18 weeks, to be served concurrently, for supplying false information to the Environment Agency.
Foley’s firm, M E Foley (Contractors) Ltd, which ran the site under an environmental permit, failed to provide the court with any company accounts and was fined £72,000.
Rebecca Kirk of the Environment Agency said: “It has taken 3 years of meticulous work for our investigation into Stowey Quarry to reach this stage. This was environmental offending of the highest order
“I am pleased the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the offences committed and this is reflected in the sentences being handed down to those who orchestrate and take advantage of such criminal practice and show a blatant disregard to the environment and public health.”
Stowey Quarry was only permitted to accept ‘clean’ and ‘non-hazardous’ material including soil and construction waste for recovery purposes – to build bunds and embankments in the quarry. Foley, as the site operator, was responsible for checking waste arriving at the site to ensure it was suitable. An investigation showed the rules were routinely flouted.
Despite repeated warnings, the illegal tipping and waste disposal continued and in October 2016 the Environment Agency served M E Foley (Contractors) Ltd with a Suspension Notice that cancelled its permit with immediate effect and stopped the site from operating.
Carcinogenic
The Environment Agency launched an investigation to establish the potential risk to human health and the environment from the illegal waste activities at the site. Samples taken from trial pits and bore holes revealed a high percentage of chopped/shredded plastics, metals, foam and other man-made materials. Analysis showed that about half the samples were hazardous and either carcinogenic or ecotoxic.
The investigation included the monitoring of landfill gases and sampling of nearby streams that showed an elevated concentration of gases together with leachate breaking out onto the surface of some surrounding fields.
Much of the waste arriving at Stowey Quarry was misleadingly described as a ‘soil substitute’ in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. The storage and disposal of hazardous material contravened the site’s permit that only allowed clean/inert waste.
Not only was the site dishonestly accepting the wrong type of waste, the operator was also lying about the amount being received. After checking waste transfer notes provided by the waste producers and hauliers, it is estimated that in 2016 alone, almost 95,000 tonnes of waste was deposited at Stowey Quarry – double the 44,950 tonnes declared by M E Foley (Contractors) Ltd.
The investigation also questioned the true amount of waste received by the site since its operation began in 2012. The amount deposited at the site by 2016 was closer to 200,000 tonnes – well above the 65,000 tonnes Foley was permitted to store for the purpose of restoring perimeter bunds and embankments using clear, inert waste.
Further defendants in the case will be sentenced in July at Bristol Crown Court and hearing dates for proceeds of crime proceedings have been set.
This is valid as of 23rd April 2021.
Sefton Council has prosecuted Britannia Hotels after a guest at its Prince of Wales Hotel in Southport sustained life-changing injuries due to falling through rusted iron railings.
Fiona Townsend, the Council’s Senior Lawyer, told Sefton Magistrates Court that the railings to prevent people falling down the 6ft drop to the basement lightwells were missing in one location and badly corroded in numerous other areas. The Council had issued an improvement notice after the Company failed to make the area safe with suitable fencing over three weeks after the incident.
She said: “Britannia Hotels could not demonstrate that a system was in place to check and maintain the iron railing regularly. Its risk assessments failed to address the hazard of a fall from height as happened to guest Deborah Henshall and did not refer to the iron railings.
“The company fell short of the appropriate safety and the systems it had in place were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented. It had failed to make appropriate changes following prior incident and had allowed breaches to continue over a long period.
“This led to the incident, which has had a substantial and long-term effect on the Ms Henshall’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities or on their ability to return to work.”
The guest, Deborah Henshall, told the court she suffered two spinal fractures, a broken left big toe and blood on her lungs due to the sternum and rib fractures. She had also sustained a head injury, concussion and trauma.
Fining Britannia Hotels £80,000 and awarding costs of £6,821.92, District Judge Wendy Lloyd said: “I take both Britannia’s previously good character and guilty plea into account, but others were exposed to risk of falling into the light-well, a number of people were potentially at risk.
“I extend great sympathy to Ms Henshall. This amount is in no way a representation of what I think her injury is worth. This is a fine on health and safety failings.”
This is valid as of 22nd April 2021.
Almost three-quarters of workers in the UK would feel more comfortable returning to work if others around them are vaccinated against Covid-19, according to a survey by recruitment company Randstad.
More than 27,000 workers in 34 countries were polled. It was found that 78% want to go back to the workplace at least partially, and 87% would be willing to get vaccinated if it’s required for their job.
The survey also found that feelings of isolation, a longing for personal connections and the need to strike a healthier work-life balance were some of the key factors behind employees’ desire to return to work, even on a part-time basis.
Over half (52%) of employees said they missed in-person interaction with colleagues, and a fifth said their productivity had been affected negatively by working remotely.
Concurring with similar surveys and in line with recent announcements by major employers, 56% of respondents said they enjoyed having a hybrid work set-up where they were in charge of where they worked.
While workers are keen to return to the workplace for at least some of the week, however, they want to feel safe while they are there.
Robust safety
Seventy-two per cent of workers in the UK said they would not feel safe in the workplace unless others around them are vaccinated – 19% higher than the global average. Almost two-thirds (63%) said they would prefer to work from home until the vaccine is more widely distributed.
Victoria Short, CEO of Randstad UK said: “It’s encouraging to hear that so many are rooting to physically get back to the workplace. It doesn’t come as a surprise however that the majority won’t feel comfortable in a communal environment until they have been vaccinated.
“In order to best manage expectations, employers have a key role to play in ensuring robust safety protocols are in place prior to reopening the doors to the wider, non-essential workforce.
“While remote working has its benefits, teams are missing out on extra shared learnings, mentoring, spontaneous meetings and ideation sessions which are typically trickier to do virtually. With three in five UK adults now vaccinated and with restrictions lifting, it’s the perfect time to navigate safely back to the workplace, and take advantage of the increasing job opportunities we are seeing as the demand for talent rises.”
Globally, more than a quarter of workers (28%) have been asked by their employer to be vaccinated, Randstad found. Sixty-seven per cent believe there will be more job opportunities once they have been vaccinated.
In terms of confidence in the labour market, 54% anticipate there being a better jobs market globally, rising to 61% of UK respondents. Almost half of UK employees said their experience with their employer during the pandemic had motivated them to stay with their employer in the long term.
Short added: “To help instill greater confidence around wellness and safety, leaders need to work on reassuring the workforce that they can take comfort in returning to a workplace that is flexible, and above all, safe.
“Despite employees putting in more hours working from home, 77% are still satisfied with their job, and we can only expect this number to rise once we return to the workplace or hybrid working environments, which we know the majority desire.”
This is valid as of 21st April 2021.
The "New Normal" has been a hard adjustment for us all and forced us into new situations. If you notice that some of your employees are struggling but don't know where to start, then watch our free webinar. Our speakers will provide you with some key action points that you can use that not only help in the short-term but will be beneficial in the future. A woman who needed hearing aids after her ears were damaged by a faulty fire alarm at her workplace has been awarded over £241,000 by the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court.
Haesel McDonald, who was an employee of tanning salon operator Indigo Sun Retail Ltd while studying dance at Dundee and Angus College, sought reparation for injury in the form of tinnitus and hearing loss arising from four hours of exposure to the noise from the alarms in her workplace.
Told to keep working
The pursuer worked at a tanning salon in Dundee operated by the defender between January 2015 and February 2016. The fire alarm in the pursuer’s workplace was known by the defender to be faulty, causing it to sound unnecessarily on numerous occasions. One such occasion was the morning of 12 December 2015 at which time the pursuer was working an 9am to 1pm shift.
The noise of the alarms made it difficult for the pursuer to concentrate on her work. She telephoned her manager, Steven Campbell, for assistance, who indicated that he would come to the salon but that she should continue working. This frustrated the pursuer, who had hoped that the alarm could be turned off or that she would be allowed to go home. Fearing that she would lose her job if she left, she remained at the salon.
At around 11am Mr Campbell appeared at the salon and applied tape to the alarms to muffle the sound, indicating that an engineer would be called at an unspecified time. The pursuer was not offered any form of ear protection and was told to keep working. Nearby shops that were also having problems with their alarms managed to either turn them off or sent all of their employees home.
The average noise level to which the pursuer was exposed was 87.5dB prior to the arrival of Mr Campbell and thereafter 82.9dB. Following the conclusion of her shift, she continued to be aware of a ringing in both ears and later impairment of her hearing. In December 2016, by which time the pursuer had returned home to Inverness, she was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and provided with hearing aids on the NHS.
In March 2017, the pursuer was referred to a consultant otolaryngologist, Professor Laing. His working diagnosis was that the pursuer had sensitive inner ears and that most of her hearing loss had been caused by the exposure to the noise of the alarms.
It was averred that the pursuer no longer felt able to pursue a career in dance due to a loss of confidence caused by her hearing impairment. Further, her NHS hearing aids were generally uncomfortable, and it would be better to replace them with a private model. The pursuer now sought to pursuer a career in sport science, and her future career would involve vigorous physical activity that could cause the NHS hearing aids to fall out.
The pursuer submitted that the defender was at fault in common law and under its statutory duty under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. She should not have been exposed to the noise of the alarm and she should have been instructed to leave the premises after it had activated.
No other explanation
In his judgment, Sheriff Mundy said of the pursuer’s evidence: “That the noise of the alarm was extremely loud cannot seriously be disputed in light of the evidence of the pursuer of the effect it had upon her at the time and indeed the evidence of her student colleague and flatmate Amelia Newton that the noise could be heard from within their flat across the street, all of which is reflected in the findings in fact.”
He went on to say: “The application of tape did not achieve elimination of the risk, nor did it bring down the level of noise to below the lower exposure action value. A reasonably practical and obvious step would have been to have a system in place to instruct the pursuer to remove herself from the premises in the event of the alarm sounding.”
On whether the pursuer’s hearing loss had been caused by exposure to the alarms, Sheriff Mundy noted: “[The pursuer’s] evidence, which I have accepted as credible and reliable, shows that before the pursuer’s exposure to the fire alarm she had no tinnitus or hearing difficulties. Following the exposure of the noise of the fire alarm, she developed tinnitus and hearing difficulties.”
He continued: “While it is not of course for the defender to prove a cause, I have found no other credible explanation for the pursuer’s problems and if there was another cause, it would be a remarkable coincidence if the symptoms emerged immediately following the exposure to noise.”
Sheriff Mundy concluded on this matter: “The pursuer has discharged the onus upon her to prove causation by the civil standard. The very risk that the regulations were designed to avoid eventuated and, as indicated, it is my view that the obligations in the regulations founded upon are within the compass of the employer’s duty to take reasonable care at common law.”
Considering quantum of damages, he said: “In light of [the pursuer’s] young age, the immediate onset of symptoms, the hearing deficit being bilateral, the severity of the hearing loss as demonstrated by the audiograms and being accompanied by intermittent tinnitus, an award should be made at the upper end of [the solatium] bracket. Account should also be taken of the prospect of deterioration in her hearing.”
He added: “It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for the pursuer to have hearing aids which allow her to follow a future career involving vigorous physical activity and also to allow her to engage in dancing.”
For these reasons, the defender was found to be liable for the pursuer’s hearing loss. Damages were assessed at £25,000 for solatium, £1,300 of interest thereof, and £214,977 for the future cost of private hearing aids replaced every three years. The total award amounted to £241,277.
This is valid as of 21st April 2021.
Two company directors have been fined at the Old Bailey court for operating an illegal waste wood operation in Essex.
One director was ordered to pay £50,000 in fines, compensation and legal costs whilst the other faces a 5-year ban as a company director.
By a unanimous verdict, 47 year old Mr Finbar Francis Breslin, formerly of Patent House, London E14 6NU and now of County Donegal, Republic of Ireland, was found guilty in his role as director for causing Prime Biomass Ltd to commit the offence of operating a regulated facility without a permit. Judge Bate said that Mr Breslin had been the front man before passing a sentence of conditional discharge for 2 years and imposing a 5-year director’s disqualification order against him.
By a unanimous verdict, 59 year old Mr Mehmet Mustafa of Highlands Road, Bowers Gifford, Basildon, Essex was also found guilty for his part in the same crime and Judge Bate sentenced him to a fine of £4,000, a compensation order of £30,000 to the victim who was left with the abandoned wood waste and he was ordered to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs in the sum of £16,000.
A third director was acquitted by a majority verdict.
The hearing follows a 5 week trial at the Old Bailey back in October and November 2018.The Environment Agency prosecuted the 3 directors for storing and treating waste wood in excess of the 500 tonne limit allowed by the waste exemption they had registered – causing a substantial dust contamination to neighbouring businesses, a fire risk to the local environment and passing on the costs to the landowner by abandoning the waste.
The Old Bailey heard that the three company directors of Prime Biomass Ltd had contracted with a Swedish company to supply recycled waste wood. The basis of the contract was that waste wood would be supplied to the company site in Dover’s Corner Industrial Estate, New Road, Rainham, Essex RM13 8QT, treated, and then moved to another location before being exported to Sweden.
In January 2013 Mr Mustafa registered a T6 exemption on behalf of Prime Biomass Ltd – this exemption allows a company to chip, shred, cut or pulverise waste wood and waste plant matter to make it easier to store and transport, or to convert it into a suitable form to use. In this case, Prime Biomass Ltd was allowed to treat or store no more than 500 tonnes of waste wood in any 7 day period at their site.
When Environment Agency officers visited the site in September 2013 Mr Breslin admitted that the site contained 1,200 tonnes of waste wood which was in breach of the T6 exemption. An agreement was made that the company would reduce the waste. By 30 October 2013 some efforts has been made to reduce the waste wood pile.
However, on two visits in November 2013 the amount of waste did not appear to have reduced. On subsequent visits Environment Agency officers quantified that the waste had increased again.
Both directors were interviewed under caution. Mr Mustafa suggested that Mr Breslin was principally in control of the site. Mr Breslin in turn told officers that Mr Mustafa managed the site.
By February 2014 Prime Biomass Ltd was in liquidation, the directors had abandoned the site leaving the waste wood in situ.
The waste wood remained until late 2018 when the site and other surrounding land were sold for redevelopment.
Ruth Shaw, case officer from the Environment Agency said: “We visited the site on numerous occasions but the defendants continued to ignore our advice on how to comply with their exemption and run a site within the rules. Further visits to the site revealed an increase in illegal activity with even more waste on site, causing a serious fire risk and dust nuisance to the neighbouring community.
“Their actions showed blatant disregard for local residents and businesses and put the environment and local amenity at risk. Waste crime can undermine legitimate businesses, so we work closely with businesses to help them comply with the law.
“In cases like this where individuals consistently operate illegally, we have no hesitation in prosecuting them as we want to make sure that waste crime doesn’t pay.”
In May 2020 the Court of Appeal upheld convictions against Breslin and Mustafa.
This is valid as of 17th April 2021.
A construction company has been fined after HSE inspectors found unsafe working at height practices and unsafe crane operations during a routine inspection.
On 15 October 2019, the inspection in Malvern, Worcestershire, observed a crane in an unsafe position on the roadside. The mobile crane was being operated in an unsuitable position – on a slope. There was not any plan for the lifting operation or a competent lift supervisor, putting workers and members of the public at risk.
Workers had also installed a temporary platform on scaffolding without any additional edge protection, as required by the regulations, to prevent a fall from height.
A Prohibition Notice (PN) was served immediately in response to the work at height breach and a Notification of Contravention and Improvement Notices (IN) were served in relation to planning for work at height and planning for lifting operations.
J F Wright Ltd of Brecon Close, Droitwich, Worcestershire pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.
They were fined £64,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,926.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Chris Gregory said: “Although there were no incidents involved in the investigation, there was the potential for serious injuries or fatalities in two different areas of work being undertaken at the time of the inspection.
“Those in control of work have a responsibility to ensure that workers are adequately trained, properly supervised, and work activities are appropriately planned, managed and monitored.”
This is valid as of 16th April 2021.
An environmental management services company has been fined over £1m after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing vehicle.
On 8 April 2016, an employee of Enterprise Managed Services Limited was fatally crushed when he tripped and fell under the wheels of the refuse lorry in Ashby Road, Daventry whilst on a routine collection of recyclable refuse.
Investigating, the HSE found that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had not been carried out for the collection route and there was a failure to adequately supervise the Daventry waste and recycling round.
Enterprise Managed Services Limited of the Chancery Exchange, Furnival Street, London pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They have been fined £1,020,000 and ordered to pay costs of £60,476.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Michelle Morrison said: “This tragic incident led to the death of a young man, which could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out a suitable and sufficient route risk assessment and identifying where reversing could be avoided.
“Those in control of workplaces are responsible for identifying and implementing suitable methods of working to reduce the need for vehicle reversing.”
This is valid as of 15th April 2021.
Free downloads, advance notice of webinars, product updates and perks – all straight to your inbox.