Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent –

28 October 2014 09:02

Dear Mr Bradshaw

As you are aware the Met Office is currently installing a new £100 million computer.
Let’s hope it is not sensitive to lightning damage, because The Met Office does not hold any Lightning a Risk Assessment and they recently refused my FOIA request based on national security exemption.

Has Al Quida or IS developed a Lightning Weapon?

For your information action and files

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 28 October 2014 16:00

Mr Ed Bealle

Parliamentary Justice Select Committee.

IS THE ICO REALLY WORKING

Dear Sir

One question which must be asked of the ICO by your Justice Select committee is the subject title.

The answer must surely be a resounding No.

Please see the following passage from the ICO website.

“About the ICO

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public

interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for

individuals.

The ICO is the UK’s independent public authority set up to uphold information

rights. We do this by promoting good practice, ruling on complaints providing

information to individuals and organisations and taking appropriate action

where the law is broken.

The ICO enforces and oversees the Freedom of Information Act, the

Environmental Information Regulations, the Data Protection Act and the

Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.”

This statement by the ICO is at best hogwash and at worst a tool to designed to assist the passage of fraud – I suggest the latter.

The mission statement by the ICO crashes on take off because perusal of the ICO decsion notices website would confirm that 90% of the ICO decision notices have gone in favour of the public authority and not the complainant.

It is also consistently obvious the ICO have no independence whatsoever, because they investigate cases against themselves.

Yours in disgust

Dransfield

Email sent –

29 October 2014 13:27

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Thank you for your letter

ref the Exeter University (EU) Accommodation Unit (Print Works) and thank you also for writing to the CRM Ltd ref my concerns over lightning protection dangers..

At least the EU Vice Chancellor’s Office has accepted that the EU students reside in this Print Works Premises.

I think the EU are being somewhat disingenuous by not accepting that student accommodation does come under their remit; hence I would have envisaged the EU to hold a duty of care on such matters.

As you are aware none of the EU premises across Exeter, accommodation, lecture and classrooms have been provisioned with Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) as per BS/EN/62305.

Dependant upon the response you get from the CRM Ltd, I would ask you to write to the EU Principal and ask him for an explanation why LRA has been omitted.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

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.

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

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.

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 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