In this hypothetical scenario, I find myself in the role of an architect overseeing a restoration project. The project involves the removal of a stone slab roof supported by a series of stone arches. Interestingly, adjoining rooms on either side of this structure possess similar roof designs, with arches aligning precisely with those in my designated area. The removal of my roof leaves these neighbouring arches unsupported, a concern well-recognized by those knowledgeable about historic structures.
Allow me to clarify that this is primarily an engineering matter and not a legal one: The removal of a load-bearing arch, which provides support to other arches at one or both ends, gives rise to substantial structural considerations. This action can trigger the redistribution of loads, potentially imposing excessive burdens on adjacent arches and structural elements, leading to heightened stress levels, deformation, or structural failure. Consequently, there’s a risk of overall structural instability, which could result in shifting or even a collapse of the entire structure in the absence of adequate support. To address these implications effectively, a meticulous approach is essential, involving thorough planning, structural analysis, reinforcement of nearby components, implementation of temporary support systems, and potential structural redesign.
Nonetheless, the contractor is prepared to move forward with the implementation of my design, despite my omission of instructions regarding the reinforcement of nearby components and the implementation of temporary support systems.
Now, our legal framework mandates that clients appoint health and safety supervisors. These supervisors are duty-bound to visit active construction sites as per Legal Notice 88/18 and report any identified health and safety deficiencies. They are selected by the client and obligated to halt work if they detect any hazards pertaining to health and safety. Their responsibilities are clearly established, encompassing issues such as identifying the absence of guardrails, exposed rods, and unprotected openings – all of which pose potential risks.
The question which arises is this: should these health and safety supervisors also be expected to discern design errors, such as the hypothetical omission I described?
A recurring concern highlighted by the presiding judge in the ongoing public inquiry centres on the need for increased enforcement. The judge’s perspective is valid.
However, what we may not emphasize enough is that the domain of health and safety encompasses considerations that extend beyond height-related and protective gear-related issues. If, as an architect, I am clearly making a structural error, it’s essential for timely intervention to occur concerning my actions.
The crucial point is that fulfilling the role of a supervisor or enforcer in this field goes beyond just ensuring that safety helmets are worn; it should also involve a quick recognition of any mistakes I, as the architect, may be making.
