Incorporating the requirements of current Occupational Health and Safety legislative requirements with a heritage building can be challenging to say the least, as such buildings were constructed at a time when persons were expected to assume their own risk and, as such, were more likely to avoid hazards.

Although it is still a requirement for a person to avoid hazards, it is no longer acceptable as the only form of risk control. Current Occupational Health and Safety legislation requires people who carry out activities involving heritage buildings to actively manage health and safety risks from the design stage throughout the life cycle of the building to the end user.

In general, building codes and regulations are for the construction of new buildings and structures, they are also applied to existing buildings when they are subject to significant renovation or a change in use.

Building codes and regulations mainly focus on safety and health in the areas of fire, structural failure, indoor air quality and hygiene, and not necessarily within the traditional realms of Occupational Health and Safety. Building regulations play an important role in protecting the community from catastrophic losses with requirements to mitigate losses resulting from fire, structural collapse and natural hazards. They also address issues associated to the protection of human rights such as access to buildings for persons with physical disabilities. The eight-storey commercial building that collapsed in Bangladesh on April 24 highlights the importance of Building codes and regulations. These, however, do not necessarily aim at mitigating losses or harm from end user hazards (occupational), but direct the majority of their intent at the mitigation of a major hazard (the one-off catastrophic).

Clients, developers, building owners, occupiers, design professionals such as architects, engineers, industrial designers, health and safety professionals, construction workers and users all have a role in the identification and control of the existing latent hazards. A safe work environment and effective safety outcomes do not happen by chance or by guesswork planning but through the effective coordination of all the relevant stakeholders.

Each stakeholder must ensure they are aware which of their activities are likely to harm people. It is important to understand what could go wrong, what the consequences could be and to inform those that could be impacted.

Risks associated with heritage buildings should be identified and addressed following a systematic process including:

• Identifying hazards – what could cause harm?
• Assessing risks – how serious the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening?
• Controlling risks – implement an effective control measure that is reasonably practicable
• Reviewing control measures to ensure they are working as planned.

This process should be documented and shared between the stakeholders as information transfer is key in the effective management of risk.

Areas that pose high risk to all users include:

• Exiting base building electrical wiring
• Walk ways and stair cases
• Indoor air quality
• Use of hazardous material (asbestos, PCBs, Lead Paint etc)
• Manual handling and ergonomics
• Fire
• Structural failure

The objective is to achieve a maximal level of protection for the health and safety of the building occupants while minimising the impact on the heritage significance of any given building.

There will be no one solution to a problem. Different buildings will have varying levels and items of heritage significance and exist within different settings and environments, and there may well be a range of possible solutions. Each case will need to be assessed on its own merits and the most practicable set of solutions found.

Very little attention is given to this issue in the literature readily available regarding refurbishment of buildings of heritage significance. A multitude of publications and guidelines in preserving heritage buildings, or modifications in this area which address environmental sustainability and access for people with disabilities, however scant consideration to Occupational Health and Safety is generally offered.

Andrew Angelides
Functional Risk Solutions

http://designbuildsource.com.au/workplace-health-and-safety-for-heritage-buildings

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 cite a relatively small number of exceptions and concessions to building owners and managers in otherwise meeting the requirements of the Standard in full.

One of these exceptions which creates a significant amount of uncertainty and confusion for the design, construction and facilities management community is that of Unjustifiable Hardship.

The Standard states that it is not unlawful to fail to comply with the requirements of the standard where compliance would impose unjustifiable hardship. The standard goes on to set out a detailed list of considerations to be undertaken in determining whether unjustifiable hardship would result in any given case.

To achieve uniformity between the legislative requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992, and that of the building legislation of each state or territory, the various states and territories have generally implemented additions to reflect these requirements. Many have also established an ‘Access Panel’ charged to make recommendations to building authorities about building access matters.

In the state of Victoria, the government has recognised the Building Commission’s Building Appeals Board (BAB) as the appropriate body to act as the Access Panel. Section 160b of the amended Building Act 2011 has also been included – Application for modification of building regulations relating to access for persons with disabilities; and recognises the BAB’s ability to make determinations in relation to unjustifiable hardship.

The Victorian BAB only accepts applications on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship and will consider these on that basis that they a presented as an alternative solution which meets the performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). In developing solutions to present to the panel, applicants are expected and encouraged to produce solutions that still comply with the relevant performance requirements to the maximum extent possible which would not otherwise impose unjustifiable hardship.

Further to this, the BAB also identifies Action Plans as prescribed under the DDA 1992 as items of consideration in considering applications. DDA Action Plans should include provisions which:

• Devise policies and programs geared toward achieving the aims of the Act
• Facilitate the communication of these policies and programs to stakeholders within the organisation
• Provide for the review of practices within the organisation
• Set goals and targets for the practices identified in the Plan and the methods by which these will be evaluated
• Identify the key persons within the organisation who are charged with implementing the provisions identified

The DDA 1992 does not require organisations to lodge their plans with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) but the BAB will only consider lodged Action Plans as part of an application.

As of 10 May 2013, the BAB reported having heard and made a total of 25 determinations with regard to applications regarding unjustifiable hardship as it relates to access to people with a disability. Of these only eight were approved, with the majority of the approvals provided subject to additional conditions.

Two examples of approved applications include:

• To permit horizontal access width between the carriage of a platform lift and opposing obstructions to be reduced from 300 millimetres to 200 millimetres. This was determined as such, as in order to achieve the required clearance it would require the demolition and reconstruction of a significant part of the existing historic building. The Panel also felt that the access would be significantly improved by the proposal and would not be perceivably detrimental to any person. The Board also took into account alternative entries which were currently accessible. The subject building was a Church even though this does not appear to have any bearing in the determination.
• To permit the deletion of the requirement to provide access to the retail part of a building. The Panel determined that compliance by providing an internal ramp would significantly reduce available retail space (23 square metres at the time of application) by approximately 50 per cent. The Panel felt compliance would render the space unsuitable for retail purposes and therefore would result in unjustifiable hardship. An external ramp was unreasonable as the shop was built up to the street boundary. The building was also covered by a Heritage Planning Overlay and the Panel felt that the façade features were integral to the heritage significance of the building. The conditions of the determination were that a portable ramp be permanently stored inside the entrance and that a doorbell be also installed so that assistance with placement of the ramp could be requested of staff.

http://designbuildsource.com.au/unjustifiable-what