Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass - Wycombe · 2017-09-13 · Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design 2 | P a g e Contract No. C1002 Document

Princes Risborough – Wades Park Underpass Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design

1 | P a g e

Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design

Document Ref: PR/DRF/17/1002 | Rev 1. 07

Issue Date: September 5th 2017 Client: Wycombe District Council Planning Department Council Offices Queen Victoria Road High Wycombe Buckinghamshire Controlled Document


2 | P a g e

Contract No. C1002 Document. Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass Feasibility Study Document No. PR/DRF/17/1002 Revision. 1.07 Date. September 5th 2017 Client. Wycombe District Council Document Author. Mr Daniel R Fenn Internal Review. Mr Guy Smith

Document History & Status

Distribution of copies

Revision Issue approved Date issued Issued to Comments

RB 1.07 05/09/17 RB

Revision Date Description Written Reviewed Approved

1.07 05/09/17 Final issue DRF GS


3 | P a g e

Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

Study Area & Objective ............................................................................................................... 5

Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 6

Design Criteria & Approach ........................................................................................................ 6

Minimum Height & Width Requirements..................................................................................... 6

Surface Water Drainage............................................................................................................... 6

Future proofing of Railway network ........................................................................................... 6

Materials & Finishes .................................................................................................................... 7

Lighting ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Internal Lighting within Underpass ............................................................................................. 8

Approach Lighting to Underpass ................................................................................................ 8

Surface Finishes .......................................................................................................................... 9

Ongoing Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 9

Design – Option a ...................................................................................................................... 11

Design – Option b ...................................................................................................................... 13

Summary of Construction Costs .............................................................................................. 15

Construction Costs ................................................................................................................... 15

Third Party Land Requirements ................................................................................................ 16

Links to existing Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 16

Network Rail Possession vs HS2 .............................................................................................. 18

Preliminary costings for Possessions ...................................................................................... 18

Recommendations & Conclusion ............................................................................................. 19

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 20

Topographical Survey ............................................................................................................... 20

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 22

General Arrangement Plan ........................................................................................................ 22

Revision B .................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................ 24

Construction Costings .............................................................................................................. 24

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................ 26

Principle Designer & Construction Regulations 2015 .............................................................. 26


4 | P a g e

Executive Summary This commission has been instructed by Wycombe District Council, and seeks for a preliminary design of a new underpass at Wades Park under the Aylesbury Railway line providing a new NMU link between developments. The brief sets out a design requirement with specific criteria for openness, good design, easy maintenance and low operational costs and minimal commuted sums, whilst facilitating the widening of the rail corridor over.

Summary of Conclusions & Recommendations The design focused on the provision of a new underpass serving future development in the area under the existing Network Rail line to the north west of Wades Park. The study shows that an underpass is feasible and deliverable in this location. It shows the extent of land required to deliver the underpass and provides high-level costings for a new structure. These costings will inform the infrastructure delivery plan for the growth of the town and feed into the viability assessment. The report demonstrates that a new underpass can be attractive in appearance and reinforce direct connections between the existing town and the proposed expansion area.

Location of proposed underpass


5 | P a g e

Introduction Study Area & Objective

1.1. In February – March 2016 Wycombe District Council (WDC) consulted on a draft Area Action Plan for Princes Risborough (‘Princes Risborough Town Plan’). This plan sets out an expansion of up to 2500 homes at Princes Risborough to the north west of the Risborough – Aylesbury railway line. Since then, proposals for the major expansion of Princes Risborough have been incorporated into the main Local Plan document being prepared by WDC.

1.2. Connectivity across the railway line is crucial to the successful integration of the new expansion with the existing town. Existing level crossings will need to be replaced with grade-separated solutions, and at Wades Park the most appropriate solution is an underpass through the railway embankment.

1.3. Today the land on the other side of the railway is open countryside, but in the future it will be filled with homes, schools and other social infrastructure. The underpass will form part of the main walking and cycling route from the expansion to the town centre, and so must present an attractive, safe and direct access. This is likely to be to a higher specification than a standard railway underpass.

1.4. Provision of the underpass will be a development requirement and needs robust evidencing in the plan. The cost of the underpass will need to be fed into the viability assessment of the plan, and the delivery of the underpass into the infrastructure delivery plan.

1.5. As this report is a preliminary investigation into the Underpass, it is felt that a Risk Register is not required at this stage. However if the design is to progress to detailed preliminary design then the principle designer should compile a Risk Register for the project.


6 | P a g e

Objectives The objective of this report is to examine the feasibility of a proposed underpass of the Risborough to Aylesbury railway line at Wades Park, Princes Risborough. It includes a concept design and summarises the high quality design detail, proposed alignment and outline budget costings for the underpass, based on recent precedents and case studies. The Underpass is to be a high-quality underpass with a generous span and well-designed approaches. Design Criteria & Approach As part of the feasibility and design package a full detailed topographical survey was undertake at the site and can be found in Appendix A. The design has been undertaken in accordance with TD 36/93 & TA 90/05 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and design advice is sought from Sustrans Design Manual Chapter 14; Bridges and Other Structures. The design criteria set by Wycombe District Council were to ensure that the underpass was a light, airy and visible through from side to side. In addition, to propose a structure that was easy to maintain and attractive in appearance. Minimum Height & Width Requirements The designed height of the underpass has been set at 2.7m; this ensures that it will cater for NMU and equestrian use. It is proposed that the underpass be approximately 8.5m wide, therefore providing a 3m wide dedicated cycleway and 500mm offset to the side of the underpass and a 5m wide segregated footway. The two sections should be delineated by means of a granite channel laid at grade with an inverted camber. Surface Water Drainage The internal finish ground level is set by the finish level of the railway network above it. This level must remain set at its current datum levels. Due to the existing topography of the surrounding land, there is a requirement to grade back land on either side to facilitate as much gravity surface water fed drainage. The topographical survey indicates that a gravity fed surface water drainage system could be utilised to outfall into the adjacent stream during summer months. However there is a possibility that during winter months during periods of prolonged heavy rainfall that there could be a need for the surface water system to become a pumped system given the rise in water level in the adjacent stream. Also it is proposed that a form of attenuation and self-cleansing be introduced within the drainage network prior to outfall to prohibit any possible contamination into the stream. Please refer to Appendix A for details of the 3d Topographical Survey Future proofing of Railway network The structure should also facilitate the widening of the railway line at a future date if required to become twin track. The design has been undertaken to ensure this can be facilitated. The designed depth of the underpass is now 24m between retaining concrete wing walls


7 | P a g e

Materials & Finishes It is a requirement of Wycombe District Council that any design should be low maintenance and of solid sound appearance and finished to deter and/or minimise graffiti. It is proposed that the external finish be of an impregnated oiled hardwood finish with staggered offset slats. Each hardwood slat is to be offset from the internal wall by 100mm allow for backlighting by LED lighting. This will reduce glare and give a constant ambient LED light level throughout the underpass, also with no fittings visible or accessible to users then the risk of damage from vandalism is drastically reduced. The hardwood slats that have been oil impregnated allow the timber to gradually “Silver up” a natural effect therefore becoming less obvious over time and softening into the surrounding environment. Oil impregnated treated hardwood effect Oil impregnated treated hardwood weathered after 12 months. The oil impregnation will seal the hardwood and will enable the cleaning off of any graffiti. Also the fact that slats have approx. 30/40mm spacings, any graffiti will look disjointed and odd; the fact that this does not give a solid wall for graffiti should again reduce the probability of this. The hardwood finish will visually soften over time and then blend into the surrounding area and look visually less intrusive.


8 | P a g e

Lighting Internal Lighting within Underpass The principle of providing linear LED backlighting, is to satisfy several criteria, the first being low maintenance, low energy cost, consistent ambient lighting. An example of LED backlighting in an underpass is shown below.

Approach Lighting to Underpass In an effort to reduce street lights and light pollution, it is proposed that in-ground LED uplighters are used on the approach to the underpass and around the external revetment walls to identify the underpass. A typical example can be seen below, these would be used to highlight the external walls of the underpass, giving a softer, feature approach lighting rather than a harsh street light.


9 | P a g e

Surface Finishes It is proposed that the surface finish be a resin bound gravel finish, this can be provided in numerous colours and shades to complement the surrounding materials. This can be applied to a precast concrete structure. The finish gives a good anti slip resistance for NMUs and pedestrians and is hard wearing and can be easily reapplied in the event of maintenance works patches. This material is usually applied at 20mm thick and is a mixture of 3-6mm aggregate and clear resin.

Ongoing Maintenance It is proposed that due to the superstructure being a PCC (Precast Concrete) Sectional unit the maintenance will be limited as it would be designed with a 120 year lifespan. The final design will require a detailed design for existing and future loadings and will require Buckinghamshire County Council Structures approval and Network Rail infrastructure team approval. Approvals in Principle (AIPs) will be required to be undertaken and submitted as part of the detailed design commission. The structure would require the standard Network Rail and BCC inspections for structures. It is proposed that maintenance monies be set aside for ongoing future maintenance. It is proposed that the standard formulas be applied for commuted sums for maintenance.


10 | P a g e


11 | P a g e

Design – Option a As draft design has been formulated as shown below, utilising the materials and finishes within this document. The drawing also identifies a cross section and plan general arrangement. Refer to Appendix B for detailed design General Arrangement.


12 | P a g e


13 | P a g e

Design – Option b Following discussions with key stakeholders, it was proposed that there was a key design feature that was requested to be adjusted integral bench as shown in revision A should be removed to reduce the likely hood of loitering and antisocial behaviour. It was felt that this was acceptable as the underpass fronts Wades Park where there are benches and other facilities.

Note: Refer to Appendix B for Complete General Arrangement Plan Rev B.


14 | P a g e


15 | P a g e

Summary of Construction Costs Construction Costs It is proposed that the scheme could be constructed in two different ways; Construction Cost Option 1 – Open cut construction, this option is the most viable option as it is the quickest and easiest construction option. However this option requires that the Railway line be closed to facilitate construction. It would be preferable to undertake these works at the same time as the HS2 line possessions are completed, therefore offsetting large potential possession costs. The scheme could then be constructed with the minimum amount of disruption. Construction Cost Option 2 – Push Launch excavation through the existing embankment to facilitate the new underpass, this option has additional costs associated as it will require temporary speed limits on the railway line as well as could potentially incur the most settlement, as well as increased construction costs due to working in proximity of live railway lines. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed breakdown of costs.

Wades Park Underpass - Budget Costings (Prices Correct @ Dec 16)

Construction Cost 1,094,484.99£ Optimism Bias @ 66% 722,360.10£ Contingency @ 20% 218,897.00£ Network Rail Possession & Management Fee 476,125.00£ Detailed Design @ 4% 43,779.40£ Contract Management & Administration @ 6.5% 71,141.53£ CDM Management @ 3.5% 38,306.98£

2,665,095.00£


16 | P a g e

Third Party Land Requirements The underpass links land owned by Princes Risborough Town Council at Wades Park with land at Park Mill Farm owned by Harbour Castle Ltd. It will necessarily cross Network Rail land and make changes to the rail asset.. Further work is required at detailed design stage to establish any associated costs relating to the construction of the proposed underpass. Links to existing Infrastructure It is proposed that the underpass links into Wades Park in the North Eastern Corner. The existing Public Right of Way that runs parallel to the existing stream will be diverted to link with the underpass; this provides NMU links into Princes Risborough. The northern side of the underpass then links through into potential development land north of the railway line.

Potential Development Land

Existing Footway adjacent existing Stream, linking into Princes Risborough

Wades Park

Proposed Underpass Location


17 | P a g e

Potential Development Site The Underpass exits into land to the North of the Railway line, currently there is a planning consent for new development on the land known as the “Leo Laboratories development site, HP27 9RR”. The plan below shows the interaction around this development and its connection to the existing bridleway. The layout below has been taken from the planning application layout 15/07349/FUL. This has been used for identification purposes only.


18 | P a g e

Network Rail Possession vs HS2 Additional information has been sought from Network Rail about rail possession, although costing data for rail possessions is not included calculated on many variables including time of year versus usage and route etc; however it is recognised that HS2 is due for construction in this area between 2020 and 2022. As a result significant cost savings could be achieved by dovetailing construction of the new underpass with dual possession with Network Rail. This would be subject to further discussions with Network Rail. These detailed discussions are outside the remit of this commission; however it is recognised by Wycombe District Council that these discussions are critical to a value engineered solution for delivery of the Underpass. Preliminary costings for Possessions It should be remembered that the costings included within this document are exclusive of any Rail possession costs. It is recommended that due to track type and nature, each possession for railway structures works be estimated to be in the region of £ 500k. However as noted above substantial savings could be realised if these works are undertaken independently of Network Rail but as a standalone project undertaken at the same time as the HS2 possession times, this will require careful planning and integration with Network Rail to realise potential. However as with all railway possessions significant risks are also present in the form of liquidated damages for over-runs. Some of this can be mitigated to a certain degree in some circumstances but a provisional sum must be allowed for as part of any future calculations. It should also be remembered that it is at this stage assumed that the structures will become Network Rail property; however no allowance has been made for commuted sums or ongoing maintenance. These will be a matter for subsequent negotiation.


19 | P a g e

Recommendations & Conclusion This report has been undertaken by DRF Consulting Engineers Ltd on behalf of Wycombe District Council to undertake a feasibility study of the proposed underpass and preliminary design options for Wades Park in Princes Risborough. Conclusions The study shows that an underpass is feasible and deliverable in this location. It shows the extent of land required to deliver the underpass and provides high-level costings for a new structure. These costings will inform the infrastructure delivery plan for the growth of the town and feed into the viability assessment. The report demonstrates that a new underpass can be attractive in appearance and reinforce direct connections between the existing town and the proposed expansion area. NMUs It is recommended that the underpass include the provision of both cycleway, footway and bridleway design facilities to be connected into both existing cycle and footway networks into and around the village of Princes Risborough. Segregated cycle ways should always be prioritised where possible and appropriate on grounds of safety for all users.


20 | P a g e

Appendix A

Topographical Survey

RAILWAY BOUNDARY LINE

RAILWAY BOUNDARY LINE FENCE LINEMAN HOLECOVER LEVEL= 103.504 m

MAN HOLECOVER LEVEL= 103.766 m

COUNCILSIGN POST

RAIL CENTRE LINEHEIGHT = 101.510 m

N

W

S

E

FENCE LINE PAVEMENTOF MOUNT WAY

GATE TO TRACKGATE TO FIELD

PLAN VIEWSCALE 1:2500 21 3 4 5m

A1

100

DO

NO

T S

CA

LE10

0

A1

drf consulting engineers ltdT. +44 (0) 1787 227 776F. +44 (0) 1787 228 064W. www.drfltd.com

Consulting Engineers & Project Managers

DRF Consulting Ltd © 2016 Copyright. No Unauthorized reproduction without the express written consent of DRF Consulting Ltd. Unauthorized copying may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings

i -

Wycombe Dsitrict CouncilPlanning DepartmentHP11 1BB

Wycombe District CouncilQueen Victoria RoadHigh WycombeHP11 1BB

Princes RisboroughWades Park Underpass Options

DRFJuly 16

RJE

July 16

C9001/DRF/WDC/PR/200/1001

i

Topographical SurveyWades Park - Princes Risborough(Sheet 1 of 1)

C900

1/D

RF/W

DC/

PR/2

00/1

001


22 | P a g e

Appendix B

General Arrangement Plan

Revision B

Timber Cladding

3m Wide Cycleway100mm upstand

500mm Offset5m Wide segregated Footway

2.7m Headroom

New DrainageGully & Channel

Incorp SUds

Wades Park UnderpassNTS

Concrete Wing Wallto rear

122

Path (um)

4

22

Path (um)

BROAD LEYS

MP

42.7

5

1

BROOKE ROAD

MP 43

The

104.9m

48

91

95

2

Car Park

66 to

77

St Mary's Church

78 to

93

Works13

17

1

41

LB

13

8

43

9

3

to

152

136

House

43

Garden

17 to

65

21

Monk's

19

74

33

21

18

162

31

to 120

13

1

to 1

44

Staithe

Centre

1a

2426

35

4a

172

41

CANNON PLA

CE

6

104.0m

The Coach House

The Barn

Pond

Pond

The Granary

The DairyHouse

Court

The Forge

Pond

Russell

to 168

Mano

Superst

Stream

Recreation Ground

70

The Mount

64

70

76

4755

57

33

49

The

El Sub Sta

Cottage

20

58

Haywain

Wint

erfol

d

87

15a

26

24

104.7

m

2

El Sub Sta

22

13

36

46

38

7

1

114

114

138

Centre

20

146

130

Cemy

to

New

50

a

Rectory

b

L Twrs

79

Playground

STRATT

ON ROAD

20

MOUNT WAY

Path

(um

)

Abbeyfield

COURT CLOSE

Community

CHURCH LANE

12

65

77

12

Hall

63

Woollerton

21

14

55

105.9

m

54

The Old

56

9

13 to 16

Manor Farm

57

17

5

1

48

99

Path (um)

Health Clinic

Path

(um

)

Leisure Centre

63

34

20

PRINCESRISBOROUGH

Sludge

Sewage Works

Beds

WATER

WATER

WATER

WATER

WATER

Wades Park

MP 43

ProposedUnderpass

New Public Footpath& Cycleway

New Fencing toNetwork Railboundary



New Public Footpath& Cycleway

New Fencing to NetworkRail boundary

AYLE

SBUR

Y LI

NE

SOUTH SIDE

NORTH SIDE

A

A

BALLAST BALLAST BALLAST BALLAST BALLAST BALLAST BALLAST

Concrete Wing Wall

Fence

Concrete Wing Wall

Fence

24.0m5.8m3.1m 5.8m3.1m

2.7m

0.3m

NORTHSOUTH

2.7m

TBC TBC

TBC

TBCTBC

A1

100

DO

NO

T S

CA

LE10

0

A1

drf consulting engineers ltdT. +44 (0) 1787 227 776F. +44 (0) 1787 228 064W. www.drfltd.com

Consulting Engineers & Project Managers

DRF Consulting Ltd © 2016 Copyright. No Unauthorized reproduction without the express written consent of DRF Consulting Ltd. Unauthorized copying may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings

i B

Wycombe Dsitrict CouncilPlanning DepartmentHP11 1BB

Wycombe District CouncilQueen Victoria RoadHigh WycombeHP11 1BB

Princes RisboroughWades Park Underpass Options

DRFJuly 16

RJEJuly 16

C9001/DRF/WDC/PR/100/1001

i

Draft Option Design - UnderpassWades Park - Princes Risborough(For Internal Discussion Only)

C900

1/D

RF/W

DC/

PR/1

00/1

001B

UNDERPASS SPECIFICATION:

Internal Span - 8750mmInternal Height - 2700mmInternal Length - 24mGradient - 1:250Roughness Coefficient - 0.01

AiP Required - Yes (Full)Safety Risk Modeling Required - Yes (Full)Ground Investigation Required - Yes (Preliminary Modeling)

Design Requirements - TA 90/05 Part 5TD 36/93GC/GN5612 2014BS EN 1991 - 1 - 7:2006UIC 776-3RGE/RT8006GC/RT5112RB T336

IPC Required - Yes

GENERAL ARRANGEMENTNTS

SECTION A - A Through UnderpassNTS

LOCATION PLANNTS

DSS (Design Safety Statement)

Prepared by: D.R.FPrepared date: 04-07-16Checked by: G.SChecked date: 08-07-16

DRA (Designer Risk Assessment)


DSR (Designer Safety Review


Internal ConformityInternally checked by: G.SDate checked: 06-07-16

Conformity checked by: D.R.FDate checked: 04-07-16

Approved by Client: ....................................Date Client Approved ....................................

Approval Status: Draft DesignFor InformationPreliminary DesignTenderConstructionAs-built

DRF Consulting Ltd - Internal Quality Assurance


24 | P a g e

Appendix C

Construction Costings

Princes RisboroughUnderpass Budget Costings

Preliminary Underpass Costingsv1.12/2016

Series 100: Preliminaries 167,950.00£ Series 200: Site Clearance 108,754.00£ Series 300: Fencing 87,452.00£ Series 400: Not Used -£ Series 500: Drainage and Service Ducts 89,752.00£ Series 600: Earthworks 99,785.00£ Series 700 Pavements 12,452.00£ Series 800: Not taken up -£ Series 900: Not taken up -£ Series 1000: Not taken up -£ Series 1100: Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 47,524.00£ Series 1200: Traffic Signs and Road Markings 2,759.00£ Series 1300: Lighting Columns and Brackets 37,152.00£ Series 1400: Electrical Work for Lighting 56,754.00£ Series 1500: Not Used -£ Series 1600: Not Used -£ Series 1700: Structural Concrete 87,542.00£ Series 1800: Not Used -£ Series 1900: Structures 137,565.00£ Series 2000: Waterproofing for Structures 21,458.00£ Series 2100: Not Used -£ Series 2200: Not Used -£ Series 2300: Not Used -£ Series 2400: Brickwork, Blockwork and Stonework 47,546.00£ Series 2500 Not Used -£ Series 2600: Not Used -£ Series 2700: Accommodation Works, Works for Statutory Undertakers -£ Series 3000: Landscape and Ecology (05/01) 17,540.00£ Series 5000: Not Used -£ Series 6000: Dayworks 25,000.00£ Series 7900: Adjustments 47,500.00£

Optimism Bias @ 66% 722,360.10£ Contingency @ 20% 218,897.00£ Rail Possession & Management 476,125.00£ (Regulatory Framework Estimate based on Engineering Complexity & accelerated programme)

Detailed Design @ 4% 43,779.40£ Contract Management & Administration @ 6.5% 71,141.53£ CDM 2016 @ 3.5% 38,306.98£

2,665,095.00£


26 | P a g e

Appendix D

Principle Designer & Construction Regulations 2015


27 | P a g e

Principal Designer & Construction Design Regulation 2015

The Construction Design management regulations 2015 came into force on 6th April 2015, replacing CDM 2007. These regulations apply to the whole process on all construction projects, from conception to completion and apply to all iterations of designs from concepts through to construction. As such the client is advised that this project falls under the CDM regulations 2015. The client must be aware of their duties under CDM 2015. On this basis it is assumed that the role of Principle Designer has transferred for the purposes of this part of the project to DRF Consulting Engineers Ltd. The Principal Designer is: Appointed by the client in writing on projects with more than one contractor; A member of the design team; a designer or designers - a person or organisation that prepares designs and/or specifies products for use in construction – with control over the pre-construction phase of the project as well as the necessary skills, knowledge and experience that individual designers must have; and An individual or organisation with sufficient knowledge and experience to carry out the role. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) is clear that designers have a strong impact on early decisions and these can have a fundamental effect on the health and safety aspects of a project. The early influence and engagement of designers is therefore important. Furthermore, as these decisions are developed, it is the designer that can ensure that health and safety aspects of the design are maintained. The designer juggles with many parameters as the design develops; it is their ability to keep the conflicting issues in balance, and ultimately result in a solution, that makes them ideal to be at the centre of pre-construction consideration of health and safety. The HSE clearly acknowledges that in tackling all the issues involved residual risks will remain in designs. These need to be identified and if possible sensible solutions for their neutralisation explained, but as a very minimum they must be explained to those on site or who will use the project. It is important to note that the duties of the principal designer are governed by a process of so far as is reasonably practicable. Principal designers are required to; Plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety during the pre-construction phase; ensure the team work to reduce risks, coordinate information, and generate solutions for construction, maintenance and cleaning that are as risk free and obvious as possible;


28 | P a g e

Generate and organise information for the health and safety file and hand this over at the end of their commission; Organise and ensure circulation of all pre-existing information on the project; and Ensure that coherent pre-construction information regarding the project both prior to the current work and as generated by the team is handed over to the principal contractor. Principal Designer & Construction Design Regulation 2015 The Construction Design management regulations 2015 came into force on 6th April 2015, replacing CDM 2007. These regulations apply to the whole process on all construction projects, from conception to completion and apply to all iterations of designs from concepts through to construction. As such the client is advised that this project falls under the CDM regulations 2015. The client must be aware of their duties under CDM 2015. On this basis it is assumed that the role of Principle Designer has transferred for the purposes of this part of the project to DRF Consulting Engineers Ltd. The Principal Designer is: 1. appointed by the client in writing on projects with more than one contractor; 2. A member of the design team; 3. a designer or designers - a person or organisation that prepares designs and/or specifies products for use in construction – with control over the pre-construction phase of the project as well as the necessary skills, knowledge and experience that individual designers must have; and 4. An individual or organisation with sufficient knowledge and experience to carry out the role. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) is clear that designers have a strong impact on early decisions and these can have a fundamental effect on the health and safety aspects of a project. The early influence and engagement of designers is therefore important. Furthermore, as these decisions are developed, it is the designer that can ensure that health and safety aspects of the design are maintained. The designer juggles with many parameters as the design develops; it is their ability to keep the conflicting issues in balance, and ultimately result in a solution, that makes them ideal to be at the centre of pre-construction consideration of health and safety. The HSE clearly acknowledges that in tackling all the issues involved residual risks will remain in designs. These need to be identified and if possible sensible solutions for their neutralisation explained, but as a very minimum they must be explained to those on site or who will use the project. It is important to note that the duties of the principal designer are governed by a process of so far as is reasonably practicable. Principal designers are required to;


29 | P a g e

5. Plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety during the pre-construction phase; 6. ensure the team work to reduce risks, coordinate information, and generate solutions for construction, maintenance and cleaning that are as risk free and obvious as possible; 7. Generate and organise information for the health and safety file and hand this over at the end of their commission; 8. Organise and ensure circulation of all pre-existing information on the project; and 9. Ensure that coherent pre-construction information regarding the project both prior to the current work and as generated by the team is handed over to the principal contractor.

Documents

Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass - Wycombe · 2017-09-13 · Princes Risborough Wades Park Underpass Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design 2 | P a g e Contract No. C1002 Document