PFD report

Richard LACO · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Oct 2015•Inner North London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
17

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure of method statements, risk assessments and lift plans to address changed landing-fitting processes
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe planning and control of lifting operations
  2. Insufficient process understanding among personnel responsible for planning and approving landing-fitting work
  3. Unavailability of an appropriate plan for basement landing fitting
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.14

  1. Action

    Require formal written sign-off by the relevant Laing O’Rourke specialist for lifting activities and temporary works, with acceptance recorded on project documentation.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 October 2015.
  2. Action

    Issue a Safety Alert to all workplaces requiring Laing O’Rourke Appointed Person approval of contractor lifting plans.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 October 2015.
  3. Action

    Appoint an additional Appointed Person for Lifting focused on CMF’s lifting activities.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 October 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    The approved lift plan required positive attachments, and any inability to comply required lifting to stop and the plan to be reconsidered.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of method statements, risk assessments and lift plans to address changed landing-fitting processes

Wider context from the report

“1. The fitting of the two below ground landings in core D of the development at the Francis Crick Institute utilised a different methodology to the landings already fitted in cores A and F. The shape of the landings was trapezoid rather than rectangular; and they were lowered vertically to ground level and then later raised & tilted to pass the side fins; rather than simply being lowered from the top directly into place. However, no part of the method statement, risk assessment or lift plan recognised that. There was no description of the different process; there was no instruction to stop the procedure if positive fixings (i.e. feeding the slings through eye bolts) could not be achieved; and there was no indication that the wide rather than the narrow end of the landing should be tilted down with the tag lines. The need for such a plan was not identified by CMF in drafting the planning documents, nor by LOR in checking and approving them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe planning and control of lifting operations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficient process understanding among personnel responsible for planning and approving landing-fitting work

Wider context from the report

“2. Not only was there no appropriate plan in place for the fitting of the two basement landings in core D, at inquest nearly two years after the event, some site witnesses did not appear to see the need for such a plan. Some witnesses did not appear familiar with basic terminology, despite still holding a pivotal role in planning/approving the plans for such processes, and gave evidence that did not demonstrate clarity of understanding of the processes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unavailability of an appropriate plan for basement landing fitting

Wider context from the report

“2. Not only was there no appropriate plan in place for the fitting of the two basement landings in core D, at inquest nearly two years after the event, some site witnesses did not appear to see the need for such a plan. Some witnesses did not appear familiar with basic terminology, despite still holding a pivotal role in planning/approving the plans for such processes, and gave evidence that did not demonstrate clarity of understanding of the processes. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to specify the correct landing orientation for tag-line tilting

Wider context from the report

“1. The fitting of the two below ground landings in core D of the development at the Francis Crick Institute utilised a different methodology to the landings already fitted in cores A and F. The shape of the landings was trapezoid rather than rectangular; and they were lowered vertically to ground level and then later raised & tilted to pass the side fins; rather than simply being lowered from the top directly into place. However, no part of the method statement, risk assessment or lift plan recognised that. There was no description of the different process; there was no instruction to stop the procedure if positive fixings (i.e. feeding the slings through eye bolts) could not be achieved; and there was no indication that the wide rather than the narrow end of the landing should be tilted down with the tag lines. The need for such a plan was not identified by CMF in drafting the planning documents, nor by LOR in checking and approving them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe planning and control of lifting operations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to include stop instructions for unsuccessful positive fixings during landing fitting

Wider context from the report

“1. The fitting of the two below ground landings in core D of the development at the Francis Crick Institute utilised a different methodology to the landings already fitted in cores A and F. The shape of the landings was trapezoid rather than rectangular; and they were lowered vertically to ground level and then later raised & tilted to pass the side fins; rather than simply being lowered from the top directly into place. However, no part of the method statement, risk assessment or lift plan recognised that. There was no description of the different process; there was no instruction to stop the procedure if positive fixings (i.e. feeding the slings through eye bolts) could not be achieved; and there was no indication that the wide rather than the narrow end of the landing should be tilted down with the tag lines. The need for such a plan was not identified by CMF in drafting the planning documents, nor by LOR in checking and approving them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe planning and control of lifting operations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to identify the need for a task-specific landing-fitting plan during drafting and approval

Wider context from the report

“1. The fitting of the two below ground landings in core D of the development at the Francis Crick Institute utilised a different methodology to the landings already fitted in cores A and F. The shape of the landings was trapezoid rather than rectangular; and they were lowered vertically to ground level and then later raised & tilted to pass the side fins; rather than simply being lowered from the top directly into place. However, no part of the method statement, risk assessment or lift plan recognised that. There was no description of the different process; there was no instruction to stop the procedure if positive fixings (i.e. feeding the slings through eye bolts) could not be achieved; and there was no indication that the wide rather than the narrow end of the landing should be tilted down with the tag lines. The need for such a plan was not identified by CMF in drafting the planning documents, nor by LOR in checking and approving them. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Require formal written sign-off by the relevant Laing O’Rourke specialist for lifting activities and temporary works, with acceptance recorded on project documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an additional safeguard, Laing O’Rourke now requires that lifting activity within a RAMS, is formally signed off on the RAMS and Lift Plan by the Laing O’Rourke Appointed Person for lifting. The same formal acknowledgement is now required by the Laing O’Rourke Temporary Works Co-ordinator, for any temporary works. Authorisation by the appropriate specialist person has always been required”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Issue a Safety Alert to all workplaces requiring Laing O’Rourke Appointed Person approval of contractor lifting plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“during the review process, for example, where the contractor’s work involves lifting. However, this step has now been committed to writing and the specialist person’s acceptance, whether it is the Temporary Works Co-Ordinator or the Appointed Person for Lifting, is evidenced on the documentation. A Safety Alert was issued to all Laing O’Rourke workplaces, through both the Management and Health and Safety functions, for implementation on 28 November 2013 emphasising the requirement that lifting operations on a project must include the sign off by the Laing O’Rourke Appointed Person for Lifting as set out on the Revised Method Statement Approval Sheet T06-T.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Appoint an additional Appointed Person for Lifting focused on CMF’s lifting activities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this tragic accident Laing O’Rourke and the client have insisted on even greater use of health and safety measures. The CDM (Construction Design and Management) Co-ordinator has been required to be on site twice a month instead of once a month since 6 December 2013. On 21 January 2014 Dean Pepper of Laing O’Rourke was appointed as an additional Appointed Person for Lifting and was specifically directed to focus on all lifts carried out by CMF, even though all those lifts were the primary responsibility of CMF.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Review all package method statements and lifting plans, suspend lifting plans pending review, and reapprove them before work recommences.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 8 November 2013 the Laing O’Rourke Project Leader at the Crick, Bob Williams, circulated an email reminder that, following the Project Director Jonathan Abbott’s team talk, all packages were to undergo a full review of all method statements and lifting plans to ensure that they were current and reflected the actual install methods. This email also indicated that all Contractor Managing Directors were required to visit the site, in order to undertake a personal presentation to their respective teams on what was required of them at the Crick. All lift plans were suspended until they had been again reviewed and approved by Laing O’Rourke. A briefing of the accident and a health and safety briefing were conducted on 11 November 2013. Work recommenced at the Crick on 11 November 2013, save for the fact that core D remained closed for the official investigation.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require monthly review of higher-risk activities and Planned-versus-Actual assessments against accepted methods.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Furthermore, each project team is now required to review activities carrying increased risk on a monthly basis and schedule a ‘Planned vs Actual’ assessment for these activities. As part of the ‘Planned vs Actual’ assessment a manager will review the accepted method statement for an activity on a more formal basis and will then review with the team carrying out the work whether there has been any change in circumstance which may have an impact on the plan, or whether improvements could be made to the method in order to make the operation safer.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require positive lifting attachments for landings and staircases and request detailed RAMS for removing damaged landings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In November 2013 Laing O’Rourke requested that CMF provide a detailed RAMS for the removal of the damaged landings in core D. Laing O’Rourke stressed to CMF that all landings and staircases must be rigged with positive lifting attachments. In December 2013 CMF started work on the revised RAMS and Lift Plan for the remaining stair installation, as well as testing its positive lifting attachments. Approval was granted by the HSE for the removal of the damaged landings from core D on 17 January 2014. On 23 January 2014 CMF were instructed to undertake a safe start workshop and to explain their method of installation for the next phase.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Instruct CMF to undertake a safe-start workshop and explain its installation method for the next phase.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In November 2013 Laing O’Rourke requested that CMF provide a detailed RAMS for the removal of the damaged landings in core D. Laing O’Rourke stressed to CMF that all landings and staircases must be rigged with positive lifting attachments. In December 2013 CMF started work on the revised RAMS and Lift Plan for the remaining stair installation, as well as testing its positive lifting attachments. Approval was granted by the HSE for the removal of the damaged landings from core D on 17 January 2014. On 23 January 2014 CMF were instructed to undertake a safe start workshop and to explain their method of installation for the next phase.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Stop lifting when circumstances, environmental changes or attachment deviations compromise the operation, then assess and approve lift-plan modifications before resuming.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. If at any stage the lifting operation becomes compromised by unforeseen circumstances or changes to the local environment, lifting will cease as soon as it is safe to do so. The appointed person will then assess the changes and implement the modification within the lift plan before lifting resumes. Similarly the slinger signaller must not deviate from using the prescribed attachments or accessories defined in the lift plan and schedule of common lifts. Any deviation will cause lifting to cease until the approved person has assessed the implications.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require qualified appointed persons to plan lifting operations using CMF’s native lift-plan procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The lifting operations are to be planned by a qualified appointed person for lifting and not by site managers who may not have formal qualifications for lifting operations despite having extensive experience of lifting. A lift plan is to be completed using the CMF native lift plan procedure to ensure consistency and content.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Submit lifting plans, temporary-works requirements and relevant design considerations to the Principal Contractor for approval before lifting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Lifting plans together with any temporary works requirement or relevant design considerations are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Contractor for projects before lifting commences.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Use purpose-designed lifting holes or bespoke lifting carriages, identified during design with advice from the appointed person.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. All members to be lifted will either have adequately sized holes that allow for the fixing of positive anchorages for lifting accessories or for alternative bespoke lifting carriages. These will be identified during the design stage and advice obtained from the appointed person.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Implement an alternative landing-lifting method using bolted lifting frames, anchored lifting eyes, chains, separate winches and an additional slab opening.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the incident and after intensive investigations into best practice for an alternative method of lifting, it was determined to proceed with a lift plan that involved tilting the landing past the fin plates. An additional lifting frame was designed to be fixed to the landing with bolts that would facilitate the use of lifting eyes. The use of slings for lifting was substituted by chains attached to the lifting eyes. A second winch was introduced and another hole made in the slab so the tilt of the landing could be carried out by raising and lowering of separate winches rather than taglines. The trapezoidal landings above the ground floor slab were installed in accordance with the original lift plan methodology as this was still considered to be the best practice although the use of slings was again substituted for chains attached to directly anchored lifting eyes.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require appointed persons to brief lift teams on approved plans, temporary works, design considerations and individual responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. All approved lifting plans will be explained to the lift team by the appointed person to ensure everyone in the lift team understands and that all members of the lift team are fully conversant with their respective duties or responsibilities. This is also to include any temporary work associated with the lift and/or important design considerations.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require appointed-person re-briefings after lift-supervisor absence and whenever a lift plan remains in force for more than 90 days.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. After delegation of the lift plan to the lift supervisor, absence of this person through illness or other reason will require a re-briefing by the appointed person to ensure replacement and entire lift team are briefed before lifting resumes. In any event if the lift plan is in force for more than 90 days, a re-briefing of the lift team will be a requirement.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

The approved lift plan required positive attachments, and any inability to comply required lifting to stop and the plan to be reconsidered.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Laing O’Rourke approved the CMF Lift Plan on the basis that positive lifting attachments would be used for the lifting and installation of the landings (and staircases). As stated by Paul Hughes at the inquest, if CMF felt that it needed to deviate from the lift plan in force, for any reason, during the installation of landings or staircase sections, the lifting operation should have stopped immediately and further planning undertaken. Although the PFD report states that “there was no instruction to stop the procedure if positive fixings...could not be achieved”, Laing O’Rourke had only approved CMF’s lifts on the basis that positive lifting attachments were in use as had been the case in all the previous stair cores. No approval has ever been given by Laing O’Rourke to CMF to lift without positive lifting attachments.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Requiring positive lifting attachments was considered sufficient to ensure a safe system for lifting and manipulating the loads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As stated by Paul Hughes, the absence of a positive lifting connection is a stop point; when lifting units and manipulating a load in the air rotating into place, there must be a positive lifting connection in order to ensure safe lifting. This principle remains the same with all lifts and shapes.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Responsibility for designing and planning the specialist lifting method and lift plan rested with the specialist contractor.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With hindsight, as the landings in the basement of core D were a different shape and were to be lifted upwards past the fin plates, before being lowered downwards onto the fin plates in the core, CMF should have considered an additional note in the plan for this lift. It is relevant, however, that the principle behind the method of lifting agreed by Laing O’Rourke in November 2013 required positive lifting attachments to be applied to a load lifted into the air and manipulated into place. This approved method provided a safe system of work, notwithstanding that, with hindsight, additional clarifications could have been, and eventually were, made to the plan by CMF, to account for the shape of the landing and the upward lift. The design of the lifting method and lift plan was the specialist contractor’s responsibility.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

The irregular landing shape was not sufficiently significant to require changing the lifting plan, and factory trials raised no concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Project Lifting Plan produced by CMF on 25th May 2013 for lifts within the cores was revised on the 22nd August 2013 (Revision C) to include photographs of trial lifts conducted by CMF at its factory. The revisions were made in anticipation of lifts to be conducted within Cores F and D. The lifting plan in this revised format was intended for use in Core D, despite the irregular shape of the landings on one side of the core. The shape of the landing was not considered by CMF to be of sufficient significance to necessitate a change to the lift plan.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 1 · response
Published 22 October 2015

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Increase the CDM coordinator’s site attendance from monthly to twice monthly.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 October 2015.
  2. 2

    Require contractor managing directors to visit the site and present required safety arrangements to their respective teams.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 October 2015.
  3. 3

    Conduct accident and health-and-safety briefings at the Crick.

    Stated by Laing O’Rourke PlcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 October 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The original lifting-plan methodology remained best practice for trapezoidal landings above the ground-floor slab, with chains replacing slings.

    Stated by C.M.F. LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Increase the CDM coordinator’s site attendance from monthly to twice monthly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this tragic accident Laing O’Rourke and the client have insisted on even greater use of health and safety measures. The CDM (Construction Design and Management) Co-ordinator has been required to be on site twice a month instead of once a month since 6 December 2013. On 21 January 2014 Dean Pepper of Laing O’Rourke was appointed as an additional Appointed Person for Lifting and was specifically directed to focus on all lifts carried out by CMF, even though all those lifts were the primary responsibility of CMF.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Require contractor managing directors to visit the site and present required safety arrangements to their respective teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 8 November 2013 the Laing O’Rourke Project Leader at the Crick, Bob Williams, circulated an email reminder that, following the Project Director Jonathan Abbott’s team talk, all packages were to undergo a full review of all method statements and lifting plans to ensure that they were current and reflected the actual install methods. This email also indicated that all Contractor Managing Directors were required to visit the site, in order to undertake a personal presentation to their respective teams on what was required of them at the Crick. All lift plans were suspended until they had been again reviewed and approved by Laing O’Rourke. A briefing of the accident and a health and safety briefing were conducted on 11 November 2013. Work recommenced at the Crick on 11 November 2013, save for the fact that core D remained closed for the official investigation.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

Conduct accident and health-and-safety briefings at the Crick.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 8 November 2013 the Laing O’Rourke Project Leader at the Crick, Bob Williams, circulated an email reminder that, following the Project Director Jonathan Abbott’s team talk, all packages were to undergo a full review of all method statements and lifting plans to ensure that they were current and reflected the actual install methods. This email also indicated that all Contractor Managing Directors were required to visit the site, in order to undertake a personal presentation to their respective teams on what was required of them at the Crick. All lift plans were suspended until they had been again reviewed and approved by Laing O’Rourke. A briefing of the accident and a health and safety briefing were conducted on 11 November 2013. Work recommenced at the Crick on 11 November 2013, save for the fact that core D remained closed for the official investigation.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 22 October 2015

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

The original lifting-plan methodology remained best practice for trapezoidal landings above the ground-floor slab, with chains replacing slings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the incident and after intensive investigations into best practice for an alternative method of lifting, it was determined to proceed with a lift plan that involved tilting the landing past the fin plates. An additional lifting frame was designed to be fixed to the landing with bolts that would facilitate the use of lifting eyes. The use of slings for lifting was substituted by chains attached to the lifting eyes. A second winch was introduced and another hole made in the slab so the tilt of the landing could be carried out by raising and lowering of separate winches rather than taglines. The trapezoidal landings above the ground floor slab were installed in accordance with the original lift plan methodology as this was still considered to be the best practice although the use of slings was again substituted for chains attached to directly anchored lifting eyes.”

Source location

Richard-Laco-Response2
Page 2 · response
Published 22 October 2015

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026