IDE Spring Seminar highlights key industry challenges

(PHOTO: D&Ri/KHL)

The event was the first mahor gathering of the UK’s leading industry players since the inauguration of the association’s new president, Adrian McLean.

High attendance numbers at the seminar were a clear indicator of the effectiveness of a more proactive approach being ushered in by McLean and the IDE Board of Directors.

The IDE Seminar saw industry leaders, engineers, and specialists gather to address some of the most pressing issues facing demolition professionals today.

The event featured expert presentations on contract complexities, high-reach demolition advancements, explosive demolition techniques, and the growing importance of stakeholder engagement.

Adrian McLean, IDE President, presented a posthumous award to the parents of Angus Holdsworth, who tragically died onsite in November 2024. (PHOTO: D&Ri/KHL)

Honouring Angus E Holdsworth

A particularly emotional moment of the seminar was the posthumous award presentation to the parents of Angus E Holdsworth, BSc (Hons) CEng MICE (15th April 1986 – 24th November 2024), a demolition professional who tragically lost his life on the job.

The IDE honored his contributions to the industry, acknowledging the risks that demolition professionals take every day to ensure safe and efficient project execution.

The award was presented in recognition of his dedication to the field, with an IDE representative stating, “We want to remember and celebrate his commitment to the industry. His passing is a stark reminder of the dangers we all face in this profession, and we must continue to prioritize safety above all else.”

His parents, visibly moved, expressed their gratitude to the IDE for the recognition. “It means a lot to us to know that his work and passion for demolition have been remembered and appreciated,” his mother shared.

The moment served as a poignant reminder of the industry’s duty to continually improve safety standards and support those affected by workplace tragedies.

Managing Stakeholder Expectations and Community Engagement

The seminar also addressed the increasing need for proactive stakeholder engagement, especially in sensitive demolition projects.

Mark Mates, Managing Director at HiTec Demolition, presented on the demolition of the Spectrum Building in Dagenham, a project complicated by fire damage, stakeholder pressure, and public safety concerns.

“When you’re dealing with displaced residents, emotions run high,” Mates said. “We had to balance safety with sensitivity, ensuring that the community felt heard and supported.”

One of the most human-centered challenges in the project was the retrieval of personal belongings from the fire-damaged building. “We had to rethink the entire process,” Mates explained. “Normally, once demolition starts, everything inside is treated as debris. But in this case, we knew we had to do more—we had to make sure families could recover sentimental items that meant everything to them.”

Mark Mates, Managing Director, HiTec Demolition. (PHOTO: D&Ri/KHL)

The team worked closely with residents, setting up a system where they could submit a list of their most valuable and sentimental items, including wedding dresses, passports, photo albums, children’s toys, and even safes containing family heirlooms. “We had people telling us they’d lost all their memories, so we had to find a way to give them something back,” Mates added.

To safely retrieve these items, the demolition team adjusted the sequencing of the demolition process, creating controlled access zones where carefully selected workers could retrieve items before sections of the building were brought down. “We prioritized safety at every stage, ensuring the structure was stable enough for our team to go in,” he noted. “It was slow, delicate work, but it was the right thing to do.”

The approach was hugely appreciated by the displaced families, some of whom had believed they would never see their belongings again. “One couple had just gotten married, and we were able to recover their wedding dress completely intact—it was one of the most rewarding moments of my career,” Mates reflected.

Despite the careful planning, there were also challenges with security and community concerns. “Unfortunately, we had people trying to break into the site, hoping to take advantage of the situation,” Mates revealed. “We had to work with police and security teams to make sure residents, workers, and their belongings were protected.”

The seminar discussion emphasised how demolition is not just about tearing things down—it’s also about the people affected by those demolitions. “This experience changed the way we approach projects,” Mates concluded. “We now make sure there’s always a plan for preserving personal belongings whenever possible. It’s a responsibility we take seriously.”

Understanding and Navigating Complex Contracts

One of the standout discussions of the seminar revolved around contractual challenges in the demolition sector. Sarah Fox, a specialist Consultant and Contract Strategist, presented on how to secure better demolition deals, highlighting that many contracts fail to account for the unique risks involved in demolition projects, leading to legal disputes and financial uncertainty.

Sarah Fox, Consultant and Contract Strategist. (PHOTO: D&Ri/KHL)

“A lot of contracts don’t actually reflect the realities and risks demolition professionals face on projects,” Fox explained. “We need contracts that are as precise and purposeful as the work we do.”

The use of inappropriate contract templates, such as JCT contracts, was identified as a key issue, with speakers emphasizing the need for industry-specific agreements that provide clear risk allocation and payment terms. The session underscored the importance of clear definitions in contracts to prevent disputes over ambiguous terms such as ‘clean site’ or ‘completion.’

Fox, a former solicitor, shared real-world examples where contractors were caught in legal battles due to unclear contract wording. One case involved a demolition firm that had completed 60% of the work, but a technical dispute over whether they had crossed a contractual “completion line” left them unpaid. “Contracts should leave no room for interpretation—everyone reading the document should reach the same understanding,” she stated.

She also warned against risk transfer clauses, which often place unfair liability on demolition firms. “Contracts should fairly allocate risk to the party best suited to manage it. Pushing all risk onto demolition contractors not only creates financial instability but can also lead to project delays and disputes,” Fox cautioned.

Fox emphasised the need for precise and practical contract language that aligns with demolition-specific challenges. “Ambiguous contract terms like ‘reasonable access’ or ‘best efforts’ leave room for disputes. If you can’t measure it, don’t include it,” she advised. She urged demolition contractors to seek legal advice before signing contracts, explaining that prevention is cheaper than litigation. “Understanding what you’re signing is not just good business—it’s survival in an industry full of hidden risks,” she added.

Another major takeaway from Fox’s session was the importance of payment security. “Contracts should clearly outline when and how you will be paid. If payment schedules are tied to arbitrary milestones or unclear benchmarks, you are putting your business at risk,” she warned. Fox encouraged contractors to push for simple, fair, and enforceable payment terms, stating that “cash flow is the lifeblood of your business—don’t let unclear contracts choke it.”

Fox also addressed a growing concern among demolition contractors—the increasing pressure to sign JCT contracts, despite their unsuitability for demolition work.

“Far too many demolition firms feel bullied into signing JCTs because ‘that’s just how it’s done,’” she remarked. “But these contracts were written with construction in mind—not demolition. They often fail to account for the different risks and responsibilities unique to demolition projects.”

She urged contractors to push back against standard contracts that don’t work for their sector, stating: “If a contract doesn’t make sense for your work, challenge it. Ask for amendments. Demand clarity. Too often, demolition firms sign without question, fearing they’ll lose the job otherwise—but a bad contract can cost you far more in the long run.”

Fox added that the industry needs to work collectively to move away from unsuitable contract models: “Until demolition firms stand together and say ‘no’ to these one-size-fits-all agreements, clients will keep expecting them to sign without negotiation. You have more power than you think—use it.”

Retention in Demolition Contracts

During the Q&A session, the issue of retention payments in demolition contracts sparked strong opinions from Fox. “What’s the point of retention when we’ve demolished the building and all we’ve got is fresh air?” she asked. She argued that retention, a practice intended to cover potential defects, is irrelevant in demolition projects where no physical structure remains.

Fox described how some contracts unfairly extend retention terms even when no defects period applies: “I read a contract that had retention held until the end of a defects period—even though there wasn’t actually a defects period applicable to demolition work. It makes no sense.”

She highlighted examples of subcontractors being forced to wait years for their final payments. “The longest period I’ve seen a subcontractor wait for retention was five years after completion. In some cases, they didn’t even realize they were locked into such terms until it was too late,” Fox explained.

Her stance was clear: “Retention is badly used, often abused, and ultimately pointless in demolition contracts. It doesn’t serve its intended purpose and just increases costs across the board.” She cited industry movements, such as Network Rail’s push to eliminate retentions, as a sign that change is necessary: “Some tier-one contractors are beginning to see that retentions don’t benefit them either. It’s just an outdated mechanism that creates unnecessary financial strain.”

Fox concluded by urging demolition contractors to challenge retention clauses during contract negotiations. “You need to push back on this. If a client insists on retention, ask them to justify it—make them explain why it’s necessary for a project where nothing remains to be ‘defective’.”

Cormac McLean, Managing Director at PDC Explosives Engineering. (PHOTO: D&Ri/KHL)

Explosive Demolition in Urban Settings

Another highlight of the seminar was a case study on explosive demolition projects, focusing on the Hexham House blowdown.

Cormac McLean, Managing Director of PDC Explosives Engineering, and Paul Turbitt, Demolition Project Manager at Thompsons of Prudhoe, detailed the meticulous planning required due to its location near residential and commercial buildings, as well as a live substation just six meters from the structure.

“We had to ensure every aspect of the operation was meticulously planned, from charge placement to debris control,” McLean noted. “With explosive demolition, there is no margin for error.”

The speakers from PDC and Thompsons explained how precise charge placement and rigorous stakeholder coordination ensured a safe and controlled collapse. The discussion reinforced the need for early engagement with authorities, including HSE and local councils, to navigate regulatory hurdles and community concerns.