Report on Inquiry: Phase 3 Douglas Promenade
Ref Nos:
(i) DF15/0019; (ii) DF15/0022;
(iii) DF15/0023
Application Nos (i) 15/00594/B; (ii) 15/00598/CON; (iii) 15/00599/CON
__________________________________________________________
Appendix 3
Applicant’s comments on
Objectors’ comments on Risk Assessments
Introduction
The Applicant has received copies of
Assessments from the following Objectors;
A.
Anne-Marie Rivers.
B.
Mr Richard Halsall.
C.
Mrs M Bridson.
D.
Patricia Newton.
the
comments to
the
Risk
The Applicant`s consultants have had an opportunity to review the
contents of the above submissions. In the Applicant`s opinion, significant
parts of all the submissions are not comments on the actual Risk
Assessments undertaken on behalf of the Applicant. The comments which
have been provided, to a great extent highlight the objectors` opposition
to the scheme. In this regard, the Applicant is of the view that most, if not
all, the objectors` opposition to the proposals based on safety issues have
already been put on record in their letters of objection copies of which are
with the Inspector, and in their oral submissions during the Inquiry.
In addition to the above, considerable evidence on general safety issues,
tram operations, appropriate sight lines and other safety related matters
was provided to the Inquiry by a number of witnesses from both the
Applicant`s team, the proposed operator`s experts at Douglas Borough
Council (“DBC”) and by Mr Almond from the Highway Authority.
At the request of the Inspector, Mr Almond has now submitted an
addendum to the Highway Authority`s report on the application
reconfirming the Authority`s full support for the proposals in compliance
with the relevant planning policies in the 2007 Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
At the Inquiry, various questions and points of clarification from objectors
as well as the Inspector were put forward and discussed in some detail.
This included an explanation of the methodology for each of the individual
risk assessments undertaken. Confirmation was also given by both the
applicant and operator`s team that the risk assessments represent
ongoing work in the usual manner on projects of this nature.
With the above background, as an introduction to comments in response to
the objectors submissions the Applicant wishes to provide the following
overview relating to the principles of risk assessments followed by the
1
Applicant`s response to some of the points that have been raised in the
comments received.
Risk Assessments - Overview.
1.
Zero tolerance of risk or risk aversion is not an option in the real world
where hazards prevail in all workplaces and locations where people
assemble and undertake sport and leisure pursuits. The management
of residual risks associated with significant hazards, ie. where control
measures may be non- existent or minimal offers the challenge to
designers to influence an unacceptable level of risk through design
considerations, planning and specification.
2.
The definition of risk assessment according to the UK Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) is to “Consider hazards that may cause harm
to people and decide whether enough is being done to prevent harm.
Once this exercise has been carried out, appropriate and sensible
control measures are to be implemented to reduce any residual risk to
as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).”
3.
Reasonably practicable as defined in the HSE is “The means of
balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the
real risk in terms of money, time or inconvenience. It is not needed to
take action if it would be grossly disproportionate to the level of risk
evaluated.
4.
Competence in undertaking risk assessments is achieved by an
assessor possessing skill, knowledge and experience. These attributes
were established when each member of the design team completed a
project-specific competence and resources questionnaire when they
were engaged in Phases 1/2 of the refurbishment works. In addition,
each member of the design team through their professional disciplines
and continuous professional development programmes demonstrated
their current competence in fulfilling design risk assessments.
5.
In determining what risks are reasonably foreseeable, each member
of the design team has sought information and guidance from
industrial bodies – reference to UK and global heritage transport
systems; common knowledge – consultation with Douglas Borough
Council (DBC) HDT operator staff and the DoI; and expert knowledge
– HSE, ORR, Environment, Safety and Health Directorate (DEFA), and
Isle of Man Railways.
Responses to Comments Received to the Risk Assessments
A.
6.
Ann-Marie Rivers
Responses supplied by Ann-Marie Rivers essentially question the
control measures arising from risk assessments prepared by Pegasus
Consulting Limited on behalf of the operator DBC and would be more
sensibly addressed by DBC and their advisor.
2
7.
The Applicant`s recollection of verbal responses supplied at the
Inquiry by the Applicant`s team and the DBC addressed the questions
posed in these this objector`s document. The Applicant is therefore of
the view that there is no hazard referred to that has not already been
addressed by the design team and DBC.
8.
With the above in mind, the Applicant`s response to the comments
from Ann-Marie Rivers are limited to the following.
9.
Pegasus Preamble.
In her comments under “Pegasus RA preamble”, several “questions
have been raised regarding experience of horse drawn trams, possible
mitigation measures and training.
10. As referred to above, these questions, for the most part, were raised
and comprehensively covered at the Inquiry by Mrs Harrison and
Messrs Cannan and Crellin on behalf of DBC. They explained the high
level of expertise and experience each tram driver tram driver has and
the extent of the intended further training that will be undertaken.
With regard to mitigation measures to include any permanent
barriers, these have been considered by the design team and
rejected. A physical barrier would affect the operation of the tramway
and the amenity space. It would also have the negative impacts of
sterilising a large section of the existing Promenade reducing large
open areas.
Pegasus Main Risk Assessment.
11. As also referred to above, the issue of the extent and form of training
was covered at the Inquiry as was the intention to conduct test runs.
The trams will also be fitted with warning bells.
12. In terms of line of sight, this matter has been dealt with at the Inquiry
and within separate submissions by the Applicant and Mr Almond of
Highway Services.
13. Issues under the subheading of “hazard” and passenger safety were
explained to the Inquiry.
14. With regard to horse excrement, this issue was addressed by Mrs.
Harrison on behalf of DBC as were potential issues of presence of dogs
on the Promenade. These matters were not considered an impediment
to the proposals being approved.
Risk Register.
15. As explained to the Inquiry access through the cut through is inclusive
of all uses but designed to prevent cyclists and possible unthinking
walkway users from wandering onto the tram line
16. From the above summary, the Applicant would conclude that the
comments provided do not represent any beneficial information on
matters of risk assessment for the Inspector to consider nor do they
3
raise any issues that have not been addressed either through the
various letters of objection or the discussions at the Inquiry.
B.
Mr Richard Halsall
17. The views on risk assessments in general provided by Mr Halsall are
based very much on subjective interpretation without any quantitative
or qualitative assessment to underpin his concerns over risk issues
addressed. The content of this response mainly reveals an opportunity
taken to express his rejection of the planning application and not
address the risk documentation supplied.
18. With the above in mind, the Applicant would further comment on Mr
Halsall`s response as follows.
19. On the first page of his submission Mr Halsall highlights the fact that
the Applicant has not undertaken a survey of users of the Promenade.
He also refers to what amounts to his opinion of the dangers of
placing the trams on the Promenade. The Inspector is well aware that
this forms the basis of most of the objections that have been received.
20. On the second page of his submission, Mr Halsall makes reference to
his email to the Minister and then provides comments on evidence
provided at the Inquiry on matters of risk but does not provide any
direct references to any parts of the Risk Assessments in support of
his views.
21. Whilst he provides references to matters of risk, the context of the
individual statements do not raise any new issues not already before
the Inspector either in his letter of objection or as one of the
numerous matters of risk presented by the Applicant`s team to and
discussed at the Inquiry.
C.
Mrs Bridson
22. Mrs Bridson in her submission has cited many but not all the
significant hazards that the DoI design team and BSA have addressed
in their Risk Assessments and combined total of 100m hazards. The
Applicant`s risk consultants are of the view that there is no new piece
of information relating to risk assessments that were omitted from the
outset of the project and which have been considered to date.
23. In referring to the HSE definition given in 2, focus has to be on the
system design on which the planning application is being made and
not aligned with information acquired from a global experience.
24. Mrs Bridson`s reference to regulation 13 of the Construction (Design
and Management) Regulations 2003 with regard to design function is
incorrect as the duties incumbent on designers relate to actual
construction hazards to be encountered solely in construction,
cleaning and maintenance activities, ie. Before, during and after
installation of the HDT track. Members of the design team have
4
addressed risk control measures on a more holistic level that are
enshrined in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, namely;
(a) Section 3 – the responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of
persons who are not employees (includes visitors, members of
then public, contractors),
(b) Section 6 – the duty of any person who undertakes the design or
manufacture of any article, structure or equipment for use at
work to carry out or arrange for the carrying out of any
necessary research with a view to the discovery and, so far as is
reasonably practicable, the elimination of any risks to health or
safety to which the design or article may give rise.
25. Behaviour of people and animals has been an integral consideration in
all foreseeable HDT operations. This has been endorsed by the
experiences views provided by DBC tram operator staff as part of the
evolving safety management system and modified risk assessments
conducted by DBC. Due to the dynamic of a horse drawn tram
activities and the safety management system forcibly makes this
point. It is impossible to rely on generic risk assessments due to the
changing environment behavioural issues to address.
D.
Patricia Newton
26. There are no comments under the heading Pegasus Safety Consulting
Limited that raise any new issues not already covered through the
various objector`s letters to the application or through the discussions
at the Inquiry.
27. Comments on the first page include “I note the risks identified on
pages..” with the sentence continuing with a reference to seagulls.
Whilst the presence of seagulls may well be something that needs to
be considered, the operators have considerable experience in
anticipating any problems arising out of any potential risks imposed
by seagulls.
28. The Applicant accepts that ratings and individual scores are subjective
judgements but for the Applicant`s planning application risk
assessments these have been given by professionals experienced in
the design, operation and risk assessments of major schemes
29. In conclusion, the Applicant is of the opinion that in her consideration
of hazards Miss Newton relates incidents that she has personally
observed and these appear to be the exception rather than the rule.
The spooking of a horse, for example, can only be controlled by an
experienced HDT driver on the basis of a dynamic “de facto” risk
assessment being undertaken at the time. Such a consideration has
been addressed in DBC risk assessments and the safety management
system.
Summary
5
Where the objectors` responses have considered the risk ratings for
different aspects of the HDTR operations they have failed to grasp how
design influence and tram operator`s implementation of control measures
will have a marked effect in the management of operational health and
safety risks.
The changing environment that will accompany a much needed facelift for
the Promenade will, as mentioned by Mr Yellop at the Inquiry, call for the
implementation of new control measures combined with changes in
behavioural attitude and acceptance of responsibilities by all stakeholders
to greatly assist in the minimisation of risk.
As is evident from the above, a large part of the individual submissions do
not comment on the actual details of the Risk Assessments undertaken. In
many instances, the responses simply highlight or reiterate objections
based on safety matters that are already before the Inspector in some
detail as part of the letters of objections or which have been fully explored
at the Inquiry details of which the Inspector will have noted.
Most, if not all, of the safety issues referred to were the subject of
presentations by the Applicant`s team to the Inquiry through the
Applicant`s Summary Statements. In addition, in response to points of
clarification and questions from the floor considerable explanation was
provided by both the Applicant and the operator (DBC) on the details of the
scheme and related issues of risk.
It is accepted that there are subjective judgements that have to be made
in all risk assessments. However, the risk assessments that have been
undertaken for the Applicant`s scheme have been made by professionals
with extensive experience in the field of risk assessment. In this regard,
the Applicant will continue to use recognised professionals of the highest
calibre in order to ensure that as safe a scheme as possible is developed
and operated to the highest safety standards.
The Applicant is of the view that nothing in respect of risk has been placed
before him that should prevent the Inspector from recommending the
planning application to the Council, of Ministers for approval.
6