Shocked witnesses have described seeing people jump from as high as the 15th floor of Grenfell Tower in London as flames engulfed the building last night.

Over 200 firefighters attended the 27-storey building near Ladbroke Grove just after 1.15am as fire tore through the block of flats.The cause of the fire is still unknown but according to witness accounts there are fears that the exterior cladding may have played a role in the fire’s rapid spread.

The building has recently been refurbished at a cost of £8.6 million which included an upgrade to the exterior cladding. A resident of the 17th floor of the block, named as Methrob, told LBC Radio the “real issue was when it caught fire to the cladding outside”. He said: “That’s when I noticed the fire from outside when I looked out the window.

“By the time that we got downstairs, the fire had gone all the way up and it was just about reaching our windows on the 17th floor.”The whole one side of the building was on fire. The cladding went up like a matchstick.”

A roofing company has been sentenced for safety failings related to working at height.

Brighton Magistrates Court heard how numerous concerns were raised by members of the public about work being carried out by G & S Roofing Limited.

The company twice ignored written advice to address the issue of working at height in an unsafe manner.

In August 2016, a further concern was raised by a member of the public who contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after seeing more evidence of operatives hired by G & S Roofing working unsafely from height. Inspectors then visited the site.

The HSE investigation found one of the operatives to be working on the flashings of a chimney from a ladder resting on the pitch of the roof at the unguarded gable end of the two-storey house.

There was nothing at the gable end of the roof to prevent a person falling.

There were no suitable measures in place to prevent a person falling from the gable end, a fall which could have caused the personal injury.

A prohibition was served but the company took no action to rectify the dangerous working conditions.

G&S Roofing Ltd of Pembroke Lodge, 3 Pembroke Road, Ruslip was found guilty in its absence to breaching Regulations 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by virtue of Regulation 3(b). The company was today fined a total of £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,574.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Rebekah Dunn said: “The dangers associated with working at height are well-known and G & S Roofing had a duty to protect all operatives from the risk of falling from height.

Despite repeated advice, the company failed to put in adequate precautionary measures.

“It is vital for duty-holders to ensure that all issues related to health and safety are suitably addressed, particularly when the issues are highlighted.”

The owner of a building in Kent and the contractor employed to demolish it have been fined for safety failings after an uncontrolled collapse onto the High Street.

Canterbury Crown Court heard that the building at the High Street, Ramsgate, Kent was owned by Panther AL (VAT) Limited. Martin Elmes was contracted to undertake the demolition work.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the collapse, which occurred on 6 November 2013, found that Martin Elmes had failed to properly plan the work and then carried out unsafe demolition work.

Panther AL (VAT) Limited (PALL) did not make any enquiries into the suitability or competence of Martin Elmes to undertake the demolition.

Neither PALL nor Martin Elmes applied for a road closure and members of the public were put at risk.

Panther AL (VAT) Limited, of Deneway House, Darkes Lane, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, and was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9128.89.

Martin Elmes, of Barnacres Road, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 25(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, and has been sentenced to nine months imprisonment suspended for two years.

HSE inspector Andrew Cousins said after the hearing: “Lives were put at risk when this structure uncontrollably collapsed. Clients have a responsibility to appoint competent contractors to undertake hazardous work such as demolition.

“Those in control of demolition have a responsibility to plan demolition work and to devise a safe way of working that protects both the workers and members of the public.

“The job could have been safely carried out by simply undertaking the demolition behind a substantial hoarding.”

For further information on demolition safety visit: www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/demolition.htm

Unite, the UK construction union has condemned a decree by outsourced housing maintenance company Mears, which bans workers from having beards as ‘penny pinching stupidity’.

Members of Unite employed on social housing maintenance work in the culturally diverse borough of Tower Hamlets, were said to be told at a ‘tool box talk’ that beards were now banned. Unite has subsequently obtained a letter that states: “This is now a Mears nationwide policy for the entire company.”

The company is claiming that the ban on beards and the requirement on all workers being clean shaven is so that workers can “wear appropriate dust marks effectively”.

Unite says Mears claims that all workers have to be clean shaven in order to be safely fitted with a tight fitting face mask when working in dusty environments. The only exceptions the company is willing to make is if a worker can’t shave for medical reasons, a dust mask can’t be worn for medical reasons or a person has a beard for religious reasons. The letter also states a ‘goatee’ may be acceptable.

In the first two cases a medical certificate is required and for religious reasons the worker needs to provide a letter from a “church /mosque/synagogue /temple etc”. However the letter also states “Even in the above circumstances, this is not a disclaimer, and not guaranteed.”

While facial hair can affect tight fitting face masks (the cheapest option) other forms of masks which have their own airflow such as helmets, hoods and visors can be safely used with a beard.

While facial hair can affect tight fitting face masks (the cheapest option) other forms of masks which have their own airflow such as helmets, hoods and visors can be safely used with a beard.

Unite regional official for London Mark Soave said: “The arrogance of Mears is hair-raising. This is a highly delicate issue, which has huge cultural, religious and personal issues and where sensitivity should be the watchword. Instead members have been handed a decree from on high.

“This is clearly a case of Mears going for the cheapest option and amounts to ‘penny pinching stupidity’. Other forms of masks are available and these should be offered to existing workers.

“Unite will always put the safety of our members first and creating huge resentment and anger among your workforce is never the way forward. Mears needs to withdraw this decree and enter into a proper consultation with Unite and the workforce.”

Unite national health and safety adviser Susan Murray said: “An employer should first assess the risks presented by exposure to hazardous substances, then identify the steps needed to adequately control the risks; put them into operation and ensure they remain effective. The use of Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) may be one of the control measures, but the wearing of face masks should be a last resort and priority should always be given to eliminating the risk.

“Before any policy is introduced there should be full and proper consultation. It is crucial that the policy recognises the diversity of the workforce and the principle that workers should be consulted and given a choice of several correctly specified types of RPE so they can choose the one they like.”

Read Mears response to Unite’s criticisms here.

More on RPE:

Two Rudridge employees are gearing up for the challenge of a lifetime to raise cash in memory of a much-missed colleague.

Paul Duke and Peter Burrell, from the civil and engineering groundwork specialists, will cycle from Paris to Geneva this September to raise money for the Stroke Association.

Their route, which covers over 320 miles, will include hairpin bends and punishing climbs, including the 1,323m Col de la Faucille ascent which has regularly featured in the Tour de France.  The five day tour will take in Paris, Sens, Semur-en Auxois, Dijon, Lons-le-saunier finishing in Geneva where the pair hope to celebrate with a pint by the lake.

Last year Rudridge employee Tony Marshall, described as ‘a great colleague and friend’, died suddenly after a short illness.

He had worked at the company for 14 years as a Senior Sales Executive. “Tony’s death came as a huge shock to us all,” said Paul, General Manager of Rudridge’s Farnham branch. “We felt we wanted to do something in his memory, and raise money for a worthwhile cause at the same time.

‘It’s going to be tough for us as we’ve never cycled in the Alp’s before. We have a strict training and dietary schedule which is getting us used to life in the saddle.  We have a target to cover 500km to 600km per month on lumpy terrain with a few long climbs in the Surrey hills. We will also be completing the Ride London 100 in July and other weekend sportives.”
Paul and Peter are hoping to raise £1,200 for the Stroke Association. To find out more, or make a donation, please visit their Just Giving page www.justgiving.com/fundraising/rudridgepeteandpaul

Two companies have been fined a total of £700,000 and a director has received a suspended prison sentence following the fatal crushing of four workers at an excavation site in Norfolk.

The Court at the Old Bailey heard that on 21 January 2011 the men were constructing a large steel structure as part of the foundation for a large Pressure Test Facility (PTF) at Claxton Engineering Services in Great Yarmouth.

The structure, which weighed several tonnes, collapsed on top of the group. A large-scale emergency response took place to try and rescue the trapped workers.

Adam Taylor, 28, 41-year-old Peter Johnson and brothers Thomas Hazelton, 26 and Daniel Hazelton, 30, were all pronounced dead at the scene.

The excavation for the horizontal PTF was more than 23m long, 3m wide and 2m deep. The horizontal steel cage being constructed would have weighed about 32 tonnes when completed.

The group were working for Hazegood Construction Ltd. Daniel Hazelton was an employee, while the other three were self-employed contractors. Encompass Project Management Ltd was the principal contractor, with Hazegood operating as a contractor.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found serious flaws in the planning, management and monitoring of this complex project on the part of Claxton as well as Encompass and its company director David Groucott.

Claxton Engineering Services Ltd of Ferryside, Ferry Road, Norwich pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was fined £500,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,000.

Encompass Project Management Ltd of The Gables, Old Market Street, Thetford, Norfolk pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £50,000.

David Groucott of Diss, Norfolk, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of Health and Safety at Work Act. He was sentenced to a seven and a half month custodial sentence, suspended for two years. He was ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid community work within 12 months, and also ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

Charges against Hazegood Construction Ltd were ordered to lie on file.

HSE Construction Division Head of Operations Annette Hall said: “Those sentenced today failed the four workers who died. They didn’t carry out their legal duties, leading to the events which caused their deaths.

“This was a long term, large scale and complex civil engineering project which needed to be planned, designed, managed and monitored effectively. The tragedy here is that, in the months leading up to the accident, any one of these parties could and should have asked basic questions about building the structure safely. Such an intervention could have avoided the tragic outcome of this entirely preventable accident.”