Recurring concern

Failure to control safety risks in spoil-heap management and removal operations

First to latest report 29 Aug 2017 — 31 Oct 2018

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
6

What this concern includes

Includes failures of controls specifically dedicated to safely managing, storing, moving or removing spoil heaps during construction or waste-related operations, including safe management processes, industry guidance, traffic or vehicle-separation arrangements and methods that keep operatives away from moving trucks.

What is not included
  • Excludes generic construction or waste-industry safety deficiencies that are not specifically tied to spoil heaps or spoil-removal operations.
  • Excludes general vehicle-reversing, traffic-management or banksman failures where spoil removal is not the bounded operational context.
  • Excludes physical spoil-heap hazards or unsafe truck proximity where no deficiency in the dedicated spoil-heap management or removal controls is identified.
  • Excludes generic training, staffing, equipment or documentation deficiencies unless they directly impair safe spoil-heap management or removal.

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen Buck · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Stephen Buck died at a construction site in Thame after being struck and pulled underneath the wheels of a reversing vehicle while filling in tickets. The principal concern was the common practice of operatives working close to reversing trucks to issue tickets during spoil removal operations, increasing the risk of injury.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prevent operatives working in close proximity to trucks during spoil removal ticketing

    Wider context from the report

    “It is a relatively narrow issue but one that is likely to be relevant to many construction and waste industry sites in the country. There are issues about the use of banksmen/traffic marshals when trucks and machines are reversing and I realise that this is of course an activity involving a recognised risk. The narrower issue I wish to raise is in relation to spoil removal/muck away operations where there are potentially a large number of trucks attending a site and, in many instances, there is likely to be a requirement for the trucks to reverse thereby increasing the risk to others. I heard evidence that it is common practice in the industry for a ground worker or other operative to be given the task of issuing tickets to the truck drivers. I understand there are at least two purposes. Firstly, so that there is a record of the number of loads for invoicing purposes. Secondly, because the spoil is controlled waste and there is apparently a need for such a ticket. The result though is that an operative is often required to be in close proximity to the trucks. Clearly, it would be preferable if this was not the case. The issue of concern therefore relates to the apparently common practice for an operative to work in close proximity to trucks to issue the ticket. One might have thought that a different system involving technology could remove the need for this to occur. It would be helpful if you could give consideration to this issue. ”

    Source location

    Stephen Buck · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review Waste 09 guidance and identify improvements or clarifications concerning consignment-note issuance and pedestrian–vehicle interactions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding that this matter has been raised in respect of a construction site, WISH will review the Waste 09 guidance on this point and see what improvement or clarification might be added. The importance of the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles is a key point throughout Waste 09 and a point which regularly features in WISH’s public communications and campaigns. In view of the circumstances of this tragic case, WISH will ask its members, and devolved associate organisations, to draw further attention to the dangers of vehicle/pedestrian interactions and, in particular, the dangers of the practice of a pedestrian handing out consignment notes to drivers.”

    Source location

    Stephen-Buck-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 October 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ask members and devolved associate organisations to highlight the dangers of vehicle–pedestrian interactions, especially pedestrians handing consignment notes to drivers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding that this matter has been raised in respect of a construction site, WISH will review the Waste 09 guidance on this point and see what improvement or clarification might be added. The importance of the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles is a key point throughout Waste 09 and a point which regularly features in WISH’s public communications and campaigns. In view of the circumstances of this tragic case, WISH will ask its members, and devolved associate organisations, to draw further attention to the dangers of vehicle/pedestrian interactions and, in particular, the dangers of the practice of a pedestrian handing out consignment notes to drivers.”

    Source location

    Stephen-Buck-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 October 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Maintain and promote Waste 09 guidance on safe transport at waste and recycling sites through industry media, conferences, events, speeches and seminars.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Workplace transport accounts for only about 4% of all accidents and incidents in the waste and recycling sector. The severity of them is such, however, that they are the biggest single cause of fatality and serious injury in the sector. Managing workplace transport risks has been high on the agenda of WISH since its inception in 2001 and forms a major part of the guidance and support materials that WISH have produced in that time. The guidance document most relevant to the circumstances that your report describes as associated with the death of Mr Buck is Waste 09 – Safe transport at Waste and Recycling sites, which I attach for information. This was most recently reviewed and reissued in 2015. Like all WISH guidance and resources, Waste 09 is free to download and WISH promotes the use of its guidance regularly in industry media, at conferences and events and through speech and seminars.”

    Source location

    Stephen-Buck-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 31 October 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    CONIAC is identified as the body responsible for detailed construction-sector advice, including guidance on consignment-note issuance at construction sites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Some WISH guidance could be used and apply to waste activities on construction sites. Such activities are not, however, a focus for WISH, nor one which it has addressed previously. There is an equivalent body to WISH, namely the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC), already in existence which provides detailed advice and guidance for the Construction Sector. Information about that body and the safety guidance it produces can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/niac/index.htm.”

    Source location

    Stephen-Buck-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 31 October 2018

    Open published response

  2. Gloucestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Shaun Carter · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Shaun Carter died after jumping from a dumper truck that went over the edge of a spoil heap at a construction site; he was struck by the truck and suffered catastrophic injuries. The principal concerns were that safety procedures for dumper trucks were not consistently followed, communicated or audited, that there was no process or industry guidance for safely managing spoil heaps, and that drivers may naturally jump from trucks despite instructions to remain seated.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a process for safely managing spoil heaps

    Wider context from the report

    “2. At the inquest it was confirmed that there was no process in place to ensure that spoil heaps were managed safely, nor any guidelines issued by the HSE in this regard. This has been addressed by Tonic Construction in relation to the site its manages, but there are still no industry standards relating to the management of spoil heaps. ”

    Source location

    Shaun Carter · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of industry standards for managing spoil heaps

    Wider context from the report

    “2. At the inquest it was confirmed that there was no process in place to ensure that spoil heaps were managed safely, nor any guidelines issued by the HSE in this regard. This has been addressed by Tonic Construction in relation to the site its manages, but there are still no industry standards relating to the management of spoil heaps. ”

    Source location

    Shaun Carter · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Participate in the cross-industry working group taking forward safety improvements for forward-tipping dumpers and spoil heaps.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There were several fatal accidents involving forward tipping dumpers during 2016 and HSE was instrumental in helping the construction industry (including Tonic Construction) set up a working group to take forward safety improvements connected with the design and use of dumper trucks and the design of spoil heaps. I attend that group on behalf of HSE. The group is co-chaired by the Construction Plant-hire Association and Civil Engineering Contractors Association. The group comprises construction contractors, hire companies, owners of forward tipping dumpers, manufacturers, client organisations and industry federations as well as HSE.”

    Source location

    2017-0245-Response-by-HSE
    Page 1 · response
    Published 1 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Publicise industry safety changes through the e-news bulletin and provide website links to relevant dumper and spoil-heap guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The actions from that group include promoting an emphasis on training, not just of operators but also of supervisors and those who design construction sites so they understand the safety issues raised by the construction of spoil heaps and can where possible reduce or eliminate the use of them and otherwise tightly control the use of them. HSE will publicise the changes via its e-news bulletin which is well subscribed to within the construction industry, and provide links to the industry pages on our website. Other specific actions the group is taking are included below.”

    Source location

    2017-0245-Response-by-HSE
    Page 1 · response
    Published 1 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Assist with adding advice on unconsolidated spoil heaps to industry guidance produced under the Strategic Forum for Plant Safety Group.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Strategic Forum for Plant Safety Group (SFPSG) is to produce good practice guidance on forward tipping dumpers. I also attend this group on behalf of HSE. This guidance will be available to download free of charge and will be hosted on the CPA website (CPA chair that group). I will also be assisting CPA with an addition to its guidance on ground conditions to include advice on unconsolidated spoil heaps, and this will again be under the auspices of the SFPSG. This guidance will also be available to download free of charge from the CPA website.”

    Source location

    2017-0245-Response-by-HSE
    Page 2 · response
    Published 1 October 2017

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026