Construction News

Fri May 14 2021

Related Information

Multiple fines issued for unsafe work on chicken shed roof

25 Jul 14 Multiple safety failings have resulted in fines for a Lincolnshire poultry firm and four of its contractors after workers were caught on a roof without taking proper safety precautions.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd was prosecuted by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) after inspectors witnessed unsafe working at height while a poultry shed was being built at the company’s site in Wigtoft, Lincolnshire, in March 2012.

The poultry firm was the principal contractor but had no representatives on site. The poultry buildings were supplied by Harlow Bros Ltd of Loughborough, who sub-contracted the erection of the buildings to K & M Tomlinson Ltd, and Philip Bates.

Lincoln Crown Court was told today that HSE visited the site on 13 March 2012 and saw four workers on the roof of a new poultry building. There was no edge protection or scaffolding in place and the height of the gable roof was about 6m.

When the inspector asked the workers to come down, they had to walk about 10m along the sloping roof and down an unsecured ladder. The inspector issued Kenneth Tomlinson, director of K & M Tomlinson, with a prohibition notice, stopping further work on the roof until suitable edge protection was put in place.

When the inspector revisited the site three days later, work on the roof had been completed. A tower scaffold was at one end of the eaves and 12 airbags were on the floor at the other end of the building, but there was still no edge protection.

The inspector returned later the same day with a colleague and found workers, including Philip Bates, on the roofs of two sheds. The scaffold tower seen earlier had been dismantled.

HSE found airbags used for cushioning a fall were loose and anyone falling would have hit the ground. Faults were also found with a forklift truck being used in conjunction with work platform fitted to its prongs. A second prohibition notice was served, preventing further work on the shed roofs.

Further enforcement notices were issued to GW Padley Poultry, Harlow Brothers and Mr Bates to prevent all work on sloping roofs until adequate edge protection and internal fall protection was provided and an Improvement Notice was served on the poultry firm requiring appointment of a competent site manager.

Harlow Brothers put in place a lifeline and harness system for safe working at height, but this was found to be inadequate on inspection and a further improvement notice was served.

Related Information

The court heard that Harlow Brothers Ltd and Philip Bates have previous convictions for work on poultry house roofs without edge protection.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd of Mount Street, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22(1)(a) and regulation 22(1)(c) of the Construction (Design and Management ) Regulations 2007 and was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Harlow Brothers Ltd of Long Whatton, Loughborough, Leicestershire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on two separate occasions, the 13 and the 16 March 2012 and Section 4(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

K&M Tomlinson Ltd of Nottingham Road, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Section 5(1)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £1,000.

Kenneth Tomlinson of College Street, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) by virtue of section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

Philip Bates of The Square, Leasingham, Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £5,550 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said: “In this case there was clear evidence of a very poor attitude to health and safety generally on this site. Each of the defendants had clear duties to ensure the safety of the workers, however these were repeatedly ignored.

Working at height poses very obvious dangers but our visits uncovered a catalogue of safety breaches which could have had led to a fatal or very serious injury for a worker had they fallen. There was a continued and deliberate neglect of duties by particular parties in this case; and directors who disregard their responsibilities will be held personally accountable.”

Got a story? Email


Click here to view more construction news »