IN Brief:
- Alchemist DB Limited has been fined £20,000 after a worker drowned in a flooded excavation on a Hertfordshire construction site.
- HSE found exposed foundation trenches, unsafe access, poor lighting, and inadequate barriers.
- The case underlines the legal and operational consequences of weak excavation and site-security controls.
Alchemist DB Limited has been fined after a worker drowned in a flooded excavation on a construction site in Hertfordshire.
Mykhalio Hustei, 35, had been working for the company as a labourer on a project to build flats on High Street in Bovingdon. He was living in a property adjoining the site when he attempted to return home from a night out on 22 October 2021 and fell into one of the exposed foundation excavations, which had filled with rainwater.
His body was found the following day. The Health and Safety Executive investigated the incident and found that the site contained multiple foundation excavations without designated safe walkways. Boards and planks had been used to bridge some of the trenches, but these were unsecured, slippery, and bowed under human weight.
The site was open to the weather, increasing the risk of slippery surfaces after rain. HSE also found that there were no barriers around the excavation, no adequate lighting, and no safe route for people moving between the adjoining property and the street.
Alchemist DB Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.
Excavation risk can extend beyond the workers directly carrying out the groundworks. Foundation trenches, open excavations, temporary access routes, and partial site boundaries can create danger for employees, residents, visitors, neighbours, and anyone who may reasonably access or pass through the site.
Basic controls remain central to excavation safety. Safe access, edge protection, trench visibility, temporary lighting, drainage, pedestrian segregation, site security, and clear routes all need to be reviewed as conditions change. Rain, darkness, weekend access, shared boundaries, and adjacent occupied property can materially increase the risk.
The legal duty under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act extends beyond employees to people who may be affected by the undertaking. On residential and mixed-use sites, that can include neighbours, occupants, visitors, and workers who live near or on the site. Where construction activity affects access to an occupied property, the route must form part of the safety strategy rather than rely on informal arrangements.
The case also shows why temporary works and site logistics need the same discipline as permanent construction. A project may be relatively small, but an uncontrolled site can become dangerous before the building work itself becomes technically complex. Trenches, boards, standing water, poor lighting, and inadequate barriers are visible hazards, yet they remain recurring features of poorly managed sites.
HSE enforcement around construction safety continues to focus on foreseeable risk and practical preventive measures. Here, the hazards were physical, visible, and directly connected to the way the site was being controlled. The outcome was fatal.
The fine is lower than penalties seen in larger corporate cases, but the legal finding remains significant. Small contractors and development businesses are subject to the same duties as larger companies. Site scale does not reduce the requirement to protect people from open excavations, unsafe access, and preventable exposure to water-filled trenches.
Daily site control is where the risk is either managed or allowed to grow. Excavations should be fenced, lit, inspected, drained where required, and separated from access routes. Temporary crossings should be designed and secured rather than improvised. Where neighbouring occupation or residential access is involved, the safest route must be obvious, maintained, and controlled at all times.
