Blog Image

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

This blog is aimed at shaming those who ignore health and safety and those who abuse the Freedom of Information Act out of laziness, corruption or to cover up incompetence.

Missing Cats’ Eyes on the M5

Ben Bradshaw MP Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:58:06

Email sent – 29 October 2014 14:29

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I recently had to drive up to Bristol on the M5 and I must say how shocked I was to see so many missing Cats Eyes on both sides of the M5.

The cats eyes are an invaluable safety aspect of highways and motorways.

I appreciate this is outside your constituency remit, bbut I would envisage many of your constituents use the M5; hence I call upon you to write to the Ministry of Transport and ask for an explanation why there are numerous stretches of the M5 which are devoid of cats eyes.

In my view, sections of the M5 are unsafe and unfit for purpose due the omission of cats eyes. I appreciate there are 3 various Highway Authorities involved, DCC, Somerset and Avon .

No point in me submitting a FOIA request to the DCC ref this matter, as they will surely refuse it under vexatious exemptions.

Whether or not missing cats eyes on the M5 were a contributing aspect of the terrible fireworks accident in 2001 I know not.

For your information ,action and files

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield.



London Mayor informed of the dangers

Olympic Stadium Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:53:24

Email sent 29 October 2014 14:39

Dear Sir

Further to my recent email ref the subject title.

Please see the following article which confirms the Stadium will be roofless for next year’s Rugby World Cup.

It would automatically follow the stadium will not be provisioned with any Lightning Protection Systems.

For your information, urgent action and files.

Alan M Dransfield.

http://www.building.co.uk/news/balfour-beatty-strikes-%C2%A336m-deal-over-olympic-stadium-cost-rises/5071669.article



London Legacy Authority informed of the dangers

Olympic Stadium Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:50:11

Email sent – 29 October 2014 15:12
London Legacy Authority (LLA)

Dear Sirs

I call upon the London Legacy Authority to initiate a full safety audit on the Queen Elizabeth Stadium before it is used in the Rugby Cup Finals next year.

In particular, I draw your attention to the fact the stadium will be roofless during the World Cup owing to the delays with the project refurbishment by Balfour Beatty.

It would automatically follow that the stadium would be devoid of any Lightning Protection Systems period.

As you are aware, this stadium was subject to a FOIA case in which the LLA and the FTT refused my FOIA request based on national security.

Quite frankly, national security is about as absurd as a roofless Stadium with 75,000 people inside. The worst case scenario if this stadium took a direct lightning strike next year, it is possible for dozens or hundred of deaths and serious injuries.

The Rugby Union Sports Stadium Safety Authority are turning a blind eye to this very serious crime.

For your information, urgent action and files.

You have been warned

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.



Rugby ruling bodies informed

Olympic Stadium Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:45:34

Email sent – 30 October 2014 07.01

Attn of the the Rugby Union Stadium Safety Authority and the London Legacy Authority

Dear Sirs

Further to my recent claims ref the subject title. I have received confirmation from one of the World’s leading lightning protection experts, who supports my theory that the QEOS will be devoid of any Lightning Protection Systems should the stadium be used for Public Events without a roof.

This is because the original design included the roof material to act as the Lightning Protection Finials.

I am of the opinion that the principle contractor for the stadium, Balfour Beatty Group have hooswinked the stadium oversight authorities ref the lightning protection at this stadium. Ditto for a large number of other public funded projects and premises.

I repeat, this stadium is unsafe and unfit for public events in its current roofless position.

I would strongly recommend that the QEOS is not used for any public

events until the Stadium Roof is 100% complete. This stadium should not be used for the Rugby World Cup next year.

I reiterate the worst case scenario (WCS) during the Rugby World Cup. Dozens, even hundreds of supporters could be injured or killed should the Stadium take a direct lightning strike during a rugby game.

A very similar situation is apparent at the Exeter Chief Rugby Stadium, also built by Balfour Beatty and also scheduled for use in the Rugby World Cup.

I am of the opinion the Rugby Safety Authority are turning a blind eye to serious and life threatening lightning danger.

Please note, I have included Balfour Beatty National Safety Manager in this mailing list ie Mr Bobby Brown who has been instrumental in willful circumvention of the BS/EN 62305/2008 nationwide on Balfour Beatty projects..

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.



Balfour Beatty’s Olympic Roof Saga

Olympic Stadium Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:40:32

Balfour Beatty’s Olympic roof saga has familiar ring to it

29 October, 2014 | By Michael Sergeant

The soaring cost of the firm’s contract to strengthen the Olympic Stadium’s roof is a case of history repeating, but does Balfour face the same risks as those of previous stadia deals?

· Why stadia are so problematic

· Who bears the risk of innovation?

· Balfour engineers more favourable deal

· Was Tottenham Hotspur’s idea better?

The news that Balfour Beatty has been promised a further £36m to cover the costs of extra roof-strengthening work as part of the Olympic Stadium conversion so it can be used by West Ham may sound uncannily familiar.

Back in the late 90s, John Laing managed to lose £26m building Cardiff Millennium Stadium and the company was sold shortly afterwards to Ray O’Rourke for £1.

A few years later Multiplex ran into difficulties with Wembley Stadium, leading to one of the most expensive and protracted court battles in an industry that is no stranger to bitterly fought litigation.

Why stadia are so problematic

So what is it about sports stadia that leads so often to spectacular legal disputes?

These projects often incorporate new and, therefore, untested design features, which are also technically complex – especially when it comes to the roof.

The Millennium Stadium used a complex retractable roof and Wembley incorporated an iconic, load-bearing arch.

“Innovation in design, of course, means risk – but the key question from a contractual and legal perspective is: who takes that risk?”

These novel design features underpinned many of the difficulties experienced by the contractors and drove the delays and cost increases.

The problems now being experienced with the Olympic Stadium rebuild also seem to emanate from the roof.

To be used as a football stadium, the seating needs to extend over the athletics track area; this, in turn, means the roof needs to be extended.

This involves constructing the largest cantilever roof in the world. Indeed, the project reportedly involves the use of technology similar to that incorporated on North Sea oil rigs.

Who bears the risk of innovation?

So, yet again, we have a stadium project involving a pioneering and cutting-edge roof design.

Innovation in design, of course, means risk – but the key question from a contractual and legal perspective is: who takes that risk?

Cardiff and Wembley were both largely ‘fixed-price’ projects with the contractor taking design risk.

With such contracts, if the design development proves problematic, resulting in alterations to the method of construction and delay, then the contractor picks up the tab.

Balfour engineers more favourable deal

But with the Olympic Stadium, the press reports suggest there is some flexibility with the contractor’s costs, hence the additional chunk of cash being paid to Balfour to resolve the roof problems.

“There are many factors associated with this project which indicate that even in the context of football stadiums, it is a high-risk job”

It is hardly surprising, in view of the disastrous history of football stadium projects, that Balfour has managed to negotiate a more favourable risk allocation in relation to the roof design.

It seems likely that design risk will have been left largely in the hands of the employer, with Balfour being compensated for costs and delays arising because of the necessary changes and design development.

There are, after all, many factors associated with this project which indicate that even in the context of football stadiums, it is a high-risk job.

Was Tottenham Hotspur’s idea better?

The stadium was not originally designed with this subsequent transformation in mind.

Bolting on such a major roof extension is therefore not something a contractor would ever, in its right mind, have proposed to begin with.

It should be remembered that Tottenham Hotspur’s rival bid effectively involved dismantling the stadium completely and starting again.

That proposal received a lot of public criticism because it appeared wasteful and extravagant. But it can often be the case that starting from scratch is cheaper in the long run.

Michael Sergeant is a partner in the construction team at HFW and the author of Construction Contract Variations



Caithness Windfarm

Windfarms Posted on Sat, December 27, 2014 16:33:56

Email sent –

27 December 2014 12:41

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see the following article ref wind turbine failures and in particular the WT collapse in Deer, Scotland, which looks very similar to the 2 collapsed WT’s in the SW last year.

I appreciate such matters are outside your remit but I am deeply concerned for public safety and in particular schoolchildren’s safety where WT have been installed adjacent to the school, ie in the playground.

In my opinion, WTs installed closer than 500 metres to schools, dwellings, railways, motorways etc is tantamount to criminal negligence by the planning authority.

At this juncture the HSE have no remit whatsoever ref the siting of wind turbines which in my view is the cart before the horse ref public safety.

Local authorities across the UK are failing their fiduciary duty of care ref public safety .
The Secretary of State for HSE needs a wake up call and I ask my MP to write to the appropriate oversight authority before we witness a catastrophe similar to Aberfan.
The worst case scenario is one of the WT’s collapses directly onto a school or a blade blows onto a major motorway/railway. Worst Case Scenario (WCS) are being willfully circumvented. I would strongly recommend that a minimum 500 metres minimum clearance between any WT and dwellings, schools, railways, motorways and I would strongly recommend the HSE should be the leaders in law ref WT safety. I would also strongly recommend immediate intervention by the HSE or ministerial body to order the removal of any WT installed in school playgrounds. In the event you do not share my concerns for public safety , I would like to enquire why you have not advocated for WT installation in all Devon Schools and Government Premises.

Your thoughts and action appreciated.

Dransfield

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/



« Previous