Safety can never be compromised in renovation work

10:51am Monday 28th April 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

A young barman died after falling through a bannister at a Grade I-listed flat which had been unsafely replaced.

Samuel Underwood investigates whether there is a conflict of interest between protecting historic buildings and ensuring public safety.

The death of a young Australian barman who fell to his death through a bannister that had been unsafely replaced, prompted anger from his family, friends and the coroner investigating the incident.

Charles Greenough, 21, was leaving a party at a Grade I-listed flat in Brunswick Square, Hove, last year when the accident happened.

He fell five metres into a basement and died in hospital a week later from swelling of the brain and bronchial-pneumonia.

At the inquest into his death, Brighton and Hove Coroner Veronica Hamilton-Deeley criticised the renovation work and said the bannister was "dangerous and not fit for purpose".

She questioned whether there was a conflict of interest when renovation work was carried out on listed buildings after an independent analysis of the bannister revealed it had been unsafely refurbished 16 years earlier.

The damning report by engineering expert Jonathan Orrell branded it "dangerous" as it was neither strong enough nor high enough to protect people using the stairs and did not meet current building regulations.

A spokeswoman for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said there were often conflicts between legislation designed to protect historic buildings and building regulations.

She said: "The reason is that building regulations have construction in mind, whereas heritage protection legislation is aimed at retaining the fabric of the building.

"There is often misunderstanding about the application of the building regulations, with overreliance on the prescriptive approach of the approved documents which accompany the regulations.

"In fact, the building regulations are written as a standard of performance with no pre-determined requirements.

"This means that compliance can be achieved in a number of ways and this might help retain features in a listed building.

"Legislation protecting historic buildings does not take precedence over the building regulations. Both need to be obtained.

"In most cases satisfactory agreements can be reached with building control officers and conservation officers.

"In cases where safety of the public is concerned, then safety must be the priority.

"Fire protection and risk of injury from falling are areas where there must be adequate protection and it must not be compromised.

"I know that historic staircases are often load-tested if a structural engineer cannot calculate the loading.

"English Heritage is consulted on applications involving works to Grade I and Grade II buildings and the decision is made by the local authority."

A spokesman for English Heritage said: "We were saddened when we learned about this tragic event.

"When changes are proposed to listed buildings we provide advice to owners, local authorities and the Government. For issues affecting safety we normally advise a process of risk assessment.

"The retrospective application of modern standards to buildings built long ago can be problematic but we routinely accept appropriate changes necessary to keep historic buildings in use. We have not had any recent involvement with the building in question.

"The historic architecture of Brighton and Hove is one of the city's greatest assets. By making changes that are consistent with the design and character of the historic houses there is no reason why these cannot continue to be used and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

"We are not convinced that the age of a property means that it could not be safe to use nor that the protected status of listing is a barrier to sensible changes should any safety risk be identified."

While it appears there is some middle ground which safety and preservation can share, it comes as little comfort for Mr Greenough's parents, Deborah and Douglas.

Speaking after the inquest, they said: "We cannot comprehend how this terrible thing can have been allowed to happen.

"It seems that the appearance of buildings is given priority over their safety."