A question about "design scaffolding" and requirement to "drill ties into the brickwork".

[SteveDIY]

Hi, I'd like to think I'm moderately competent at DIY - but, to date, I've had no experience with scaffolding.

I'm told that, in order for a contractor to do some essential work on my roof, that scaffolding will be required. This comes as no shock... access will be necessary over an attached conservatory to a second story roof.

I am concerned that I'm being asked to sign off on a requirement to "drill ties into the brickwork" of my house - to "add extra support for the scaffolding". I'm told that the holes will be around the size of a 2p piece - and will "drill into the brickwork by approx 6 inches". I'm told that the holes will not be filled when the scaffolding is removed... because there will still be "small rods in the holes".

My house is made of standard bricks... which are 4 inches from the outside skin of the house into the cavity. If the holes are to be 6 inches deep, they're going to go all the way through the external wall - and, perhaps (if the cavity is less than 2") also into the inner wall. While I'm no expert, I anticipate that holes, the size of a 2p piece, would impair the fabric of my house... and anything which bridges the cavity could introduce damp problems in future. Drilling holes into brickwork doesn't sound like the ideal approach to me... but I wanted to ask for advice from a knowledgable crowd... before I suggest that I might be dissatisfied with my contractor's proposal.

Is it usual for buildings to be left with 1" diameter, 6" deep holes in brickwork after scaffolding has been required for access? Are there any other (equally safe) approaches that would not damage the brickwork of my house?

Any information you can offer would be very helpful to me.

 

[SF Admin]

This is one way of ensuring a scaffold doesn't fall over. If you are concerned then ask them to use rakers.

 

[SteveDIY]

Many thanks for the reply. I'm not 100% sure whether my concern is sensible in a practical sense. I don't want to act like a difficult "arse" unnecessarily.

The contractor needs access to fix a Solar PV system on the roof - which they're obliged to maintain for another 11 years. I'm obliged to provide access for maintainance... and I do want the work done. My formal obligations don't explicitly state that I must accept holes being drilled into brickwork. I felt the Solar PV maintenance contractor had demanded I authorise some vaguely-defined damage... with what reads like a disclaimer that the damage might not be made-good after the work is complete. I might be over-reacting... but I'd rather play it safe than be sorry later. That said, I do anticipate needing scaffolding in future (for some repointing and painting bargeboards - which I intend to do myself)... so, if these holes are "industry standard" and nothing for me to worry about... perhaps it might be helpful to me, in future, if they had been installed for this job.

The term "rakers" was new to me - but makes perfect sense after a Google search. If the contractor says that drilling holes is required, I will be sure to ask them why rakers would not be a viable alternative. Intuitively, to me, a diagonal brace to the ground seems both more robust (safe) and less likely to damage anything. I can imagine drilling anchoring holes may be essential where there's restricted space - e.g. for a wall near a busy road... but, at my house, I think threre's plenty of space to use 'rakers'.

Thanks again!