Archive for category: General News

Image Network Rail

Using rail freight to move construction materials could boost Manchester’s economy and help the city region meet its environmental goals – that’s the message from a new industry report calling for support from the Government and Network Rail .

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) and the Rail Freight Group (RFG) want to encourage more use of rail rather than road to move materials such as aggregates and cement, used in construction.

Their new publication, Building Better with Rail Freight in Greater Manchester, says rail freight typically produces 76% less carbon dioxide than the equivalent road journeys, while a single aggregates train can carry as much as 125 lorries.

The MPA says its members supply around 200m tonnes of aggregates and 9m tonnes of cement each year to meet UK demand. But just 10% of those materials are transported by rail.

While that makes mineral products the second largest market segment on the rail network after containerised freight, both the MPA and the RFG say there is a

“huge opportunity” to deliver more of those materials by rail – cutting lorry miles, traffic congestion and carbon emissions.

The report sets out how local and national government, alongside Network Rail, can support those ambitions. It suggests measures including:

• Putting freight at the heart of future rail policy
• Commitment to a long-term programme of rail electrification to encourage private sector investment in electric rail freight
• Prioritising timetabled slots for freight – and optimising timetables to allow for longer freight trains
• Affordable track access charges
• Protecting freight land, railheads and depots for future use
• Safeguarding the operation of strategically important railheads and depots from
• new housing developments nearby, securing the land for future use
• Safeguarding rail-connected terminals and depots near city and town centres in future housing and regeneration plans, so building materials can still be delivered near to key construction sites

The report also includes case studies of local firms using rail freight, including the upgraded Cemex railhead at Salford which receives aggregates from Dove Hole quarry in Buxton. It also notes Tarmac’s three Greater Manchester railheads at Agecroft, Ashbury and Bredbury, which import hardstone and limestone aggregates from four Northern quarries.

Maggie Simpson, director general of industry body the Rail Freight Group, said:

“Greater Manchester has one of the fastest growing economies in the UK, and is seeing investment in new homes, offices and infrastructure. Rail freight is already helping to minimise the carbon emissions of this construction, and with the right policy environment in place our members will be able to transport more products by rail into the region, reducing the number of lorries on our roads.”

The MPA is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and industrial sand industries. It has some 520 members including most independent SME quarrying companies in the UK, as well as the nine major global players in the sector.

Robert McIlveen, director of public affairs at the MPA said:

“Rail freight is an environmentally efficient way for MPA members to deliver aggregates and cement to city centre locations where they are in the greatest demand. We would love to see the market for materials by rail grow to allow the industry to supply more materials in a more efficient and environmentally friendly manner and we hope that government policy will help to deliver more desired outcomes for all.”

Source: MSN

 

 

 

Up to 150 school workers and pupils are at risk of death or fatal exposure from asbestos each year as current plans to fix the UK’s crumbling schools fail to address the deadly building material, experts have warned.

A group of leading health charities, professional bodies, unions and campaigners has accused Rishi Sunak’s Government of “abandoning” attempts to deal with the “schools asbestos crisis”.

Asbestos was banned in 1999 but was used extensively in England from the 50s to the mid-80s. In February 2017, the Department for Education published a report that found 83 per cent of English state schools reported that asbestos was present in their school estate.

The group – made up of the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS), Asbestos victims’ groups, Mesothelioma UK, and education unions – are calling on the next government to take more robust action and set a deadline for the complete removal of asbestos from all schools.

They estimate that current plans will mean that 15 school workers in the UK will die annually from exposure and cite US research on asbestos which suggests that this means 135 pupils will be fatally exposed to asbestos each year.

The data from the Environmental Protection Agency in the US revealed that for every teacher dying from mesothelioma, an incurable cancer which can develop decades after asbestos exposure, nine pupils would die in middle or old age.

In a joint message, the group said the current school rebuilding plan “fails to address the growing risk to teachers, workers and pupils” and criticised data collection methods used to assess buildings which, according to government documents, do not report on hazardous materials, principally asbestos.

The experts said the Department for Education (DfE) has effectively “ceased to monitor” the condition of asbestos in schools and hope to put pressure on political leaders to act ahead of the election.

The Government argues that asbestos management in schools and other buildings is regulated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Asbestos is the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, according to the HSE. Around 5,000 UK workers a year die from asbestos-related diseases including mesothelioma.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that 371 teaching and education professionals died from mesothelioma from 2010 to 2020.

The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC), representing teaching unions, estimates that between 1980-2017 between 5,000 and 10,000 school pupils and staff died from mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure in their former schools from the 60s-80s.

Wendy Gregory, 68, a former teaching assistant who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos at a primary school in the 80s and 90s, told i it was “absolutely devastating” that teachers and pupils were still at risk.

Liz Darlison, the chief executive of charity Mesothelioma UK, said:

“We have demonstrated that the incidence of the disease amongst school and health workers is far higher than reported.

“Clearly, management of asbestos in situ isn’t working for a variety of reasons. Not least because what is assessed as safe on the day of inspection can change immediately in a high throughput environment.”

In a joint statement, the group criticised the way in which the DfE currently collects data on the physical condition of the 22,000 schools in England.

A Commons Committee of Public Accounts report on reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in November said the DfE had “incomplete knowledge” of asbestos in schools.

The “unexpected presence of asbestos” had complicated ongoing work to address RAAC, the committee said, as it called for DfE evidence it has “a full picture of asbestos across the school estate”.

Professor Kevin Bampton, chief executive of BOHS, said the Condition Data Collection (CDC) methodology does not automatically prioritise asbestos and the risk is only considered when raised as an exceptional factor.

This could mislead schools returning CDC information and was unlikely to prevent future deaths, he said.

He believes the current approach of leaving asbestos where it is “is storing up poison for the future”.

“My children go to a school with an asbestos problem. It’s too late for me to prevent them from having been exposed,” he said.

“My daughter literally has an asbestos sign in her bedroom which was blowing around the playground.

“But I definitely don’t want my grandchildren to be still dealing with this problem when asbestos in schools is in an even worse condition.

“Asbestos is not a problem of the past, any more than climate change is. It is a deadly legacy, we bequeath future generations, if we don’t act now.”

For a school to be eligible for exceptional school funding, the asbestos must have already caused an exposure risk or be in a condition that would cause a direct risk to human health, the group said.

The experts are calling on any future government to commit to legislation for a national action plan for asbestos management and a deadline for removal from schools.

Sarah Lyon, a National Education Union lead on asbestos, said: “The odds are stacked against schools successfully bidding for a rebuild, with so many hoops to jump through (the guidance seems to be suggesting that people have to have been put at risk by exposure before action will even be considered) and removal would be cost effective.”

The group also want a publicly available register of asbestos in schools, including information about condition, risk and management plans.

Other demands include ensuring school workers who are likely to have been exposed to asbestos are properly trained, and that governors and parents are given information and training on asbestos.

The Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management (FAAM), the professional body for those managing asbestos risks, is concerned that teachers are being left to fend for themselves.

Jonathan Grant, chair of FAAM, said:

“Asbestos management requires complex risk assessment and constant vigilance.

“Less than 2 per cent of maintenance and other workers in schools who might need to disturb asbestos had appropriate training and 13 per cent did not even have asbestos awareness training.

“That’s like putting someone in a minefield, but not giving them a map.”

The HSE says annual deaths from mesothelioma are expected to decline during this decade, as asbestos has been banned for almost 25 years and legal protections are in place.

A 2022/23 HSE inspection campaign of more than 400 schools showed that the majority of schools were managing asbestos safely, the HSE said, with inspections on compliance in schools and elsewhere ongoing.

But Charles Pickles, an asbestos campaigner, said it would take hundreds of years to rid schools of the “toxic carcinogen” unless the UK planned to remove asbestos from buildings.

“The general message is that we don’t want to panic parents and pupils at a time of declining school attendance,” he said.

“However, that message is also being used to undermine accountability and bury the issues. It’s also patronising to suggest parents should be kept in the dark about a genuine risk to their children’s health.”

The DfE says responsible bodies could nominate schools for the School Rebuilding Programme, including evidence where asbestos could no longer be effectively managed, with schools and local authorities responsible for keeping buildings safe.

The department said it follows HSE advice that provided asbestos-containing materials are in good condition, and unlikely to be disturbed, it is generally safest to manage them in place.

Source: iNews

THE Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has launched its manifesto ahead of the General Election, outlining how a future UK Government can support the built environment sector. 

The manifesto, entitled ‘CIOB’s Manifesto for the Built Environment – Opportunities for future proofing the construction industry’, covers four key themes; Environmental Sustainability, Quality and Safety, The Future of Construction, and People and Skills.

It outlines short, medium and longer term policy recommendations to address some of the  challenges facing construction and society including late payments to supply chains, skills shortages, better opportunities for SMEs, and improving diversity and inclusion in the sector.  

Caroline Gumble, CEO at CIOB, said,

“Now the date for the UK General Election has been confirmed, we’ve launched our manifesto so we can engage with prospective parliamentary candidates while they’re developing their own campaigns. Candidates come from a range of backgrounds and don’t always understand the complexities and importance of the built environment sector, which is a major economic driver so it’s down to us all as the experts to educate them.

“It’s important they know what support is needed to enable the industry to play its part in creating a safe and sustainable built environment for everyone.”

CIOB’s manifesto recommendations are: 

Environmental Sustainability                

·       Develop and implement a green skills fund 

·       Adapt building regulations to include whole life carbon assessments  

·       Develop and implement a national retrofit strategy 

Quality and Safety   

·       Review the voluntary status of consumer codes for new-build housing 

·       Provide fairer opportunities for SME housebuilders 

·       Reform the current Land Value system 

Future of Construction 

·       Tackle late payment culture 

·       Develop and implement a strategy for Modern Methods of Construction 

·       Use geographical clustering to level up the UK 

People and Skills 

·       Include EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) commitments in public sector contracts 

·       Overhaul of the Apprenticeship Levy 

·       Introduce a Built Environment GCSE 

Alongside the manifesto, CIOB will also be launching a dedicated election page on its website for members to stay updated on key dates, election candidates, and what the political parties are saying in their own manifestos about the built environment. 

Caroline added, “I strongly encourage CIOB members to use this manifesto and our online resources to engage with those standing for election in the constituencies they live and work in to help push construction further up the political agenda.”

 

DOWNLOAD THE MANIFESTO HERE

Building Liability Orders (BLOs) are a new type of order that the High Court has the power to make under s.130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), if it considers it “just and equitable” to do so.

Since BLOs are a novel remedy, there is very little guidance about how the courts will apply the “just and equitable” test or, indeed, about how a BLO application should be made in practice. A recent High Court ruling has provided some welcome guidance on a number of practical aspects, such as:

• At what stage in proceedings should a BLO application be made?
• Who may apply for a BLO?
• What factors might the Court consider in deciding whether it is “just and equitable” to make a BLO?

In this update, we examine the background to this case and the key takeaways.

What is a Building Liability Order?

The policy intent behind the introduction of this new type of order is to prevent developers from escaping liability for building safety defects by setting up thinly capitalised special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to carry out developments. It has been common practice for such SPVs to be wound up following completion, thus allowing their well-capitalised parent companies to avoid long-term liability for any defective works.

BLOs will target this scenario, by extending a “relevant liability” of a body corporate (Party A), so that it will also be a liability of an “associated” body corporate (Party B). In the event that a BLO is made, Parties A and B will then be jointly and severally liable for the relevant liability.

A “relevant liability” is a liability incurred either:

• under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972);
• under section 38 of the Building Act 1984 (BA 1984) – if and when this is brought into force; or
• as a result of a “building safety risk”.

A “building safety risk” is defined as “a risk to the safety of people in or about a building arising from the spread of fire or structural failure”. This has broad scope: while claims under the DPA 1972 are limited to dwellings, liability as a result of a “building safety risk” encompasses a wide range of potential liabilities, including in respect of non-residential buildings.

Background to the recent decision

The case of Willmott Dixon v Prater and others concerns alleged fire safety defects in the design and construction of the external wall system (EWS) at a mixed-use commercial and residential property development in London. Willmott Dixon is seeking to recoup the cost of fixing the defective EWS by claiming around £47 million from its supply chain.

This includes claims against the specialist cladding and external envelope contractor Prater Limited (Prater), its guarantor and parent company Lindner Exteriors Holding Limited (Lindner), the architects, the building services engineers and the approved inspectors. They all deny any liability.

One of the co-defendants has applied for BLOs against both English and German-registered companies within the same corporate group as its other co-defendants, Prater and Lindner. Based on publicly available information, the applicant alleged that both Prater and Lindner had largely disposed of their assets, transferring them to other companies within their corporate group in the period after Willmott Dixon’s claim against them was filed.

If ordered, the BLOs will make the additional Lindner Group companies responsible for liability attributed to Prater or Lindner in the main claim.

The issue before Mrs Justice Jefford DBE related to the application by the Lindner Group companies for a stay on the BLO claim until the main claim was resolved. They submitted that it would be unfair for them to have to deal with the BLO claim until the question of whether Prater and Lindner were liable had been resolved, and/or whether they would discharge any resulting liability.

Technology and Construction Court decision

Mrs Justice Jefford DBE rejected the application for a stay. Notably, she found that:

• A party seeking a BLO was not obliged to bring its claim at the same time as the primary claim against a related company, whether or not such a party existed at the time of the project or the time of the proceedings.
• However, if the company did exist at the relevant time and the BLO was claimed before the resolution of a main claim, it would appear that the correct approach would be to have the BLO application heard and dealt with at the same time as the primary claim. Any burdens or difficulties with ensuring that the Defendants to the additional claim were afforded a proper and cost-effective opportunity to deal with it could normally be dealt with by appropriate case management.
• On proper analysis of the legislation, BLO claims would normally raise issues that did not necessarily arise in the main claim – but resolving those issues would typically involve consideration of much of the evidence relevant to the main claim. It would, therefore, seem unnecessary and unsatisfactory to have the court deal with the same/similar issues, which might involve considering evidence already on record more than once and/or require further evidence on much the same issues.
• BLO claims are claims contingent upon the liability of others and these contingent claims (such as claims for a contribution, or claims under guarantees) are the norm, not the exception, in sophisticated litigation – and claims for BLOs are no different.
• A BLO claim does not only arise and/or is made if the company facing the main claim failed to pay – a failure to pay was (and still is) not a pre-condition under the BSA.
• BLOs may be sought by defendants to building safety claims, and not just by claimants.

In light of the above, Mrs Justice Jefford DBE declined to agree to a stay of proceedings and rejected the application, then set directions for the additional claim (including deadlines for remaining Defences and an initial case management conference).

Just and equitable?

A few notable points from the arguments – which it will be interesting to follow when the BLO applications are heard in full – included:

• First, the court noted during argument that it was entirely possible in an appropriate case that it would be “just and equitable” to impose a BLO on related companies where the primary company had disposed of assets – even if such disposal was entirely innocent and not done to “asset strip” that company; and
• Second, one of the companies facing the claim for the BLO expressly relied both in its pleaded Defence and in its submissions to the court upon the fact that Prater and Linder (the Defendants in the main claim) had valid and effective professional indemnity insurance, which would serve to meet, at least in part, the claim made against them.

Key takeaways on the use of Building Liability Orders

There are very limited circumstances in which the courts will look beyond the separate legal personality of a company and ‘pierce the corporate veil’. However, the granting of a BLO (as well as certain other provisions of the BSA, which we examine separately) will do precisely that: it will allow for the corporate veil to be ‘pierced’ by extending liability for defective construction works and/or design services to “associated” entities, such as parent or group companies.

This is thought to be the first judgment considering BLOs and, therefore, provides welcome guidance on some of these points.

How this guidance will be applied in practice will be seen as the case proceeds to full trial and the BLO applications are heard. Applications for BLOs have also been made in a number of other cases and it is expected that several of these will make their way through the courts this year.

 

Source: Mondaq