Matthew Wilmot

Dear Sirs Our client: B & D Civil Engineering Limited Deceased: Mr Matthew James Wilmot Date of incident: 28 May 2017 We write on behalf of our client, B & D Civil Engineering Limited in response to the Regulation 28 Report dated 17 April 2018 We note the concern is that there was not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a route that does not run parallel to highway has different risks to that is parallel to highway. It is further noted that the Coroner was satisfied that the evidence given at Inquest was that the risk assessment undertaken in connection to the excavation outside 280 Devon Road was in line with the Red Book and Industry Standards and the path was not located in an area of risk During the course of the Inquest, evidence was heard in respect of the contract/responsibility matrix including evidence that B & D provided labour, plant ad equipment pursuant to a subcontract: Inquest considered the relevant risk assessment and method statement: In addition, evidence was heard in relation to exhibit TH2, a Team Briefing given following the accident involving Mr Wilmot Briefing followed a review of the risk to the general public regarding open excavations and it briefed attendees to take into consideration certain specifics before leaving a open hole: The specifics together with the proposed steps to be taken are recorded in the copy Briefing annexed hereto. Briefing attended by B & D operatives emphasised focus on risks connected to an open hole and the likelihood of the public an alternative route. It will be appreciated that on the Devon Road site the operatives were required to complete the Amey Utility Services Limited risk assessment template_ Nev w O-owua:Ncuse 30*]6 Mcc-nert Sttee {onccn ECn 0994 neepsi6a 0z0 220 S200 020 7320580] 'Mt e tsawec#% Plts Marus 14jr Ic)aling' D;lllle"s m Iltus Linitc"d, cuniprini incOrracr/ En;lndl _ Wale" Rez Ntx 0941584 Rezislnrl olfice: krcphs Wall, Hannaner Walk Lawis IS}4AR, Pl"xus Laru: Limiler/ is uhurisrl rulerl !h Sowieilr; Rzualion Autherity (SR Na 0J6520) #hxx profustiumai rksen Ie jcsd #e cLOA uk lisc of din*tors Add Ich-dinlors #hoJI" is ;itabie #i the olirce- Fhc tanignaltd ctICC As5x ixfe d parinau' ( ` lireclar rrirlty = Icrin Mmnc[ sec*i,fari piner ~r indlitlai dinrlor ol Ph"xus |.J1 ! iinifed.r an emukucr consuluni cjunaleni r scnior 'sthuraling id inelule"s non-slicitors ,nd nctrtani Lw Limnife"ri is # Multi-njtiaru Pccha regui:uled b The _ SleIeneAd Siauda Nx jugi#hoss' profassion:i rukstnkacussy M #I j S(H E-LK 70*3 W path The The The using S ma Nu;

P L EX U $ Our client is advised that in order to address the specific concern of the Coroner M & S will amend point 4 of the Briefing to read, "If a footway closure/road closure/alternative pedestrian route is setup, is it suitable/will pedestrians follow it? If the assessment is that they will not, please contact your supervisor for advice The procedure enables operatives to escalate any concerns for the supervisor to make the final decision on the appropriate control measures to be in place Our client is advised the revised Briefing will be a mandatory part of the induction process for any new operatives supplied by B & D and existing operatives will be briefed and refreshed at six-month intervals.

Dear Sirs Deceased Matthew James Wilmot Date of Incident 28 May 2017 We write in response to the Regulation 28 Report dated 17 April 2018 We note the concern is that there was not enough emphasis within the risk assessment process that a unique route has different risks to a path that is parallel It is further noted that the Coroner was satisfied that the evidence given at the Inquest was that the risk assessment undertaken by M&S for the excavation outside 280 Devon Road was in line with the Red Book and Industry Standards During the course of the Inquest evidence was given in relation to exhibit 'TH2' . The document was the Team Briefing given following the accident involving Mr Wilmot The briefing followed a review of the risk to the general public regarding open excavations. It stated: Please take into consideration the following specifics before leaving an open hole: Would you expect high footfall in the area e.g:: school, public house, hospital, GP Surgery Is the job likely to be ongoing e.g:: due to Engineering difficulties Have you any reason to suspect that a MOP might move our barriers, take into consideration surrounding houses etc. If you have to provide the public with an alterative route is it realistic and easy to negotiate? We must be compliant but we must also be realistic in our expectations. Cane R CHAS Water Constructionline Krenarnd Safe [M HoioFn Registered Qifice: Unit 6, Kigh Town Enterprise Centre: York Street: Lulon; Bedfardishire, LU2 OHA Registtation No: 6218970. VaT No. 694 9134 90 Director: M,J Harkin: Director & Co, Secrefary; KH Harkin V:Ww"m##xn Manx Ncv Moms (WXS) Pitbing Vramanc 7e4 4 Flsle: w-etinis LajI cwlak-nn3 PPsv ~S!g:onw "13<1"g Res: : ~

If any of the above is a concern then please consider all or some of the following: Consider storing the spoil elsewhere to enable us to keep the footpath open Consider plating the excavation Consider the need for Heras Fencing If you need advice then contact your supervisor It is submitted that the additional guidance given to operatives within three days of the accident on 28 May 2017 should assuage the concern regarding unique sites and whether or not there is sufficient focus in the risk assessment process on the likelihood of the public using the alternative route. It will be appreciated that on the Devon Road site the Mes operatives were required to complete the Amey Utility Services Limited risk assessment template Given that no two sites are the same; the Company is wary of being too prescriptive in respect of the guidance given to operatives: Therefore, in order to address the specific concern of the Coroner the Company has amended point 4 of the briefing to read as follows - If a footway closure road closure alternative pedestrian route is is it suitable will pedestrians follow it? If the assessment is that they will not; please contact your supervisor for advice The intent is to provide a procedure for operatives to escalate any concerns in relation to 'unique' locations to a supervisor and for the supervisor to then make the final decision on the appropriate control measures to be put in place. As such; the procedure will ensure supervisory involvement in relation to assessments of all 'unique' locations: The briefing will be a mandatory part of the induction process for new operatives and will be refreshed for all existing operatives at six month intervals It is important to stress that M&S does not fulfil the role of the Job Initiator or Job Planner The evidence of Amey (paragraph 4.5 of statement dated 14"h December 2017) was that the Job Planner reviews the job for any special requirements based on the Job Initiators comments. The process involves a visit to the site by the Customer Services Technician: To this extent there is also the opportunity within the planning permitting process to identify 'unique' locations As was highlighted the Inquest hearing; the Company is committed to going above and beyond existing Industry Standards / guidance in relation to Street Works: additional processes now put in place are part of the commitment to continuous improvement