Two companies have admitted making communication failures, which resulted in a mobile crane toppling over and narrowly missing workers and a busy road.
The incident took place during the construction of a nursing home in Fernbrook Road, Gillingham, on 18 August 2009. JR Pickstock Ltd was the principal contractor at the site and it hired an 80-tonne mobile crane from South Coast Crane Hire Ltd.
Weymouth Magistrates’ Court heard the crane was supplied and operated by South Coast Crane Hire but there was confusion as to whether the company was required to provide crane-hire only, or contract hire, which includes planning of the lifting operation.
As a result, neither firm planned the lift, nor did they assign vital roles for the job. In addition, workers were not supplied with vital information, including the weight of the lift, or the ground conditions. This led to the crane being overloaded and operated on poor ground.
The crane overturned during the lifting operation and its extended 50-metre jib fell across the site, narrowly missing workers on the site and a nearby road.
The HSE investigated the incident and found the lift-hire contract failed to meet industry guidance, as no person had been appointed to plan the lift. This person should have been provided by the crane-hire company if a contract-hire arrangement had been agreed, or by the hirer, if it was a hire-only agreement. South Coast Crane Hire should have ensured this happened when it set up the contract.
A lift plan should have been drawn up by a competent person and communicated to workers involved in the lift. JR Pickstock failed to ensure the construction phase plan identified the risks involved in the work.
The HSE also identified that a larger crane should have been used and ground mats used to spread the load of the crane’s outriggers, owing to the poor ground conditions.
JR Pickstock appeared in court on 21 November and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.23(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, for failing to ensure the construction phase plan identified safety risks. It was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £14,917 in costs.
South Coast Crane Hire attended the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.8(1)(c) of LOLER 1998, for failing to plan the lifting operation. It was fined £10,000, plus £14,917 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Kathy Gostick said: “This incident could have led to death and serious injury, and was a direct result of a catalogue of failures by two construction companies.
“Good communication between all those involved in crane operations and all other construction activities is vital to ensure lifting operations are properly planned, particularly those involving the use of heavy mobile cranes working in a busy area, such as a construction site.
“Had it been clearly established by both companies who was responsible for planning the lift, when the lift-hire contract was agreed, it’s highly unlikely the crane would have overturned.”
SHP is attempting to get information on the mitigation offered by both companies.
Approaches to managing the risks associated Musculoskeletal disorders
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Matt Birtles, Principal Ergonomics Consultant at HSE’s Science and Research Centre, about the different approaches to managing the risks associated with Musculoskeletal disorders.
Matt, an ergonomics and human factors expert, shares his thoughts on why MSDs are important, the various prevalent rates across the UK, what you can do within your own organisation and the Risk Management process surrounding MSD’s.
Beg`s the question, why turn up with a crane and rig up if no Lifting Plan present, and why allow him to rig up if no plan present?
Complete fabrication by both parties I think?
I must have stood down 5 lifts in 2 yrs at the HSE for similar failure, and for a mutitude of lifts at Deagio where no Crane Coordinator was present, £70m Job that was.
Not as if resource was the issue on any of them.
And funnily they all made claims of not knowing?
Must have slipped thier memory I suppose?
Not one prosecution either dispite my protestation at overwelming evidence of failure?
No wonder they all seem to forget the lifting plan.
Had they been nicked, we might not be seeing repetition of similar continued failure elswhere.
But as usual, when no one gets hurt its seen as less of an issue of concern.
Had I appeared post accident, they would all have been nicked though?
Still FFI will no doubt catch them now, provided they are caught that is?
I personally find it really hard to believe that in this day and age a crane can be hired out and operated without a appointed person carrying out a lift plan, what was the driver of the crane doing he must have worked on sites that insist on documented lifts. one word unbelievable !!