Can Mast Climbers Really Reduce The Cost of Construction Crime?

Every year, around £800million worth of construction crime takes place across the UK.

Theft, vandalism and health and safety neglect are the usual reasons why this sort of crime takes place.
The problem isn’t just the crime itself or stealing construction items such as materials and tools. The time, cost and effect of such crimes also have a knock-on effect on the construction project with which those tools were required.

Days or even months can be added to a project build, costs are incurred for replacing equipment, and more insurance premiums may be required in future.
A 2016 Chartered Institute of Building research study of 1,100 construction professionals found that as much as 92% experienced some sort of theft every week, month or year.

With such obvious abuse of construction workers’ equipment, surely something can be done about this problem?

Mast Climbing: What Other Issues Can Occur?

Poorly secured equipment can simply be taken away if it is not stored away properly or if the security is lax.
However, scaffolding can also act as an entry point for further crimes to be committed.
Scaffolding is fixed to the facade of a building, which provides a permanent point of access. If these are residential high-rises, and if a window happens to be left open by a tenant, then residents are also at risk of crime, as well as the construction sites themselves.
Somebody accessing such sites who doesn’t know how to operate the equipment may also cause safety concerns for workers who are entrusting their lives on the quality of their scaffolding.
If anything is tampered with, it could end with a very serious crime if a construction worker is injured.

What Difference Could Mast Climbers Make?

Mastclimbers simply do not need as much equipment as scaffolding. It is a straightforward matter of masts, a platform, and a power supply, whereas scaffolding needs enough equipment to cover an entire facade.
By allowing fewer entry points to potential residents and reducing the visual access to potential homes, there is less chance of these residents being the victim of crime. There is also a bigger deterrent to would-be criminals trying to access such high-rise buildings.
Mastclimbing equipment can also be stored away at night in a much easier way.
They are safer because they can be securely parked at ground level with the power supply disabled. That means access cannot be provided for unauthorised personnel wanting to use the mastclimbers for criminal or illegal means.
Greater difficulties are also presented if people want to modify mast climbing equipment, which means workers are likely to be safer.

Why use BFT?

BFT has invested over £30million in mastclimbing equipment since 2015.
We are industry leaders in MCWPs and you can come to us for the most demanding construction, renovation and maintenance projects.
We use our technology and experience to safely access your building project.
If you are interested in using BFT for your construction or maintenance access requirements, call or email us today and we would be happy to help.

Understanding the Government Code of Remediation

The Government Code of Remediation is structured into four parts: the scope; undertaking remediation; living with remediation; and general compliance. Each part addresses key aspects of cladding remediation projects, to mitigate fire safety risks that are present within buildings that feature external cladding whilst ensuring the safety and satisfaction of residents. It applies to buildings regardless of occupancy levels, whether fully, partially, or temporarily occupied.

Resident-Centric Approach

The Code puts residents at the heart of remediation. It is a direct response to the Grenfell tragedy, designed to protect residents from potential fire hazards and ensure their concerns are acknowledged throughout the remediation process.

Roles, Responsibilities And Accountability

The Code mandates that roles and responsibilities related to remediation must be clearly outlined and understood by all parties involved in the project. This includes contractors, developers, building owners, tenants, residents, and management companies, so each party knows its duties and is held accountable. Parties involved in the project cannot avoid Code compliance by delegating or subcontracting their obligations.

Effective Communication and Active Engagement

It’s stated in the Code that good communication needs to be maintained from the outset of the project so that residents remain informed and sufficient transparency is achieved. Proper channels should be implemented to ensure that residents can meaningfully engage in the decision-making process. The Code acknowledges potential language barriers and encourages the use of electronic forums to ensure information is disseminated efficiently. Residents should be kept up-to-date with project developments, enabling them to contribute and participate in the design and delivery of the project.

Minimising Impact On Residents

A significant focus within the Code is on minimising the impact of remedial works on residents. Contractors and developers are expected to take measures to reduce disturbances from on-site activity, including noise, dust, and general inconvenience so that disturbances to the residents are kept to a minimum. Balancing health and safety considerations with cost and time factors is another key pillar of Part 3 of the Code. The goal is to create the least inconvenience to the residents and achieve potential cost savings for contractors and developers.

Mental and Physical Health Of Residents

Acknowledging the potential impact on residents' mental and physical health, the Code mandates careful consideration and documentation of these aspects throughout recladding projects. This additional step of record-keeping holds parties accountable for their actions and highlights the seriousness of their responsibilities.

Revaluating Your Access Method

The Government Code of Remediation sets a high standard for remediation projects with a key goal to minimise the effect recladding has on the residents. The core objective of the Code revolves around mitigating the impact on residents' homes and common facilities, while concurrently prioritising the safety and security of the building and its inhabitants.

In this context, the Code calls into question the appropriateness of using scaffolding for extended periods. A two-year presence of scaffolding, according to the principles outlined in the Code, appears incongruent with the commitment to minimise impact and ensure safety, particularly concerning security issues and prolonged inconveniences for residents.