A dispute has emerged over roof renovation work at a property in Saltdean after nearby residents grew anxious about asbestos-containing materials being removed from the premises.
Concerns were escalated to the Health and Safety Executive regarding construction activity at 3 Ridgewood Avenue.
The regulatory body, which oversees asbestos-related operations, subsequently examined the location on August 17.
Inspectors concluded their assessment without identifying any failures in safety procedures during the tile removal process.
The property’s proprietor, Lloyd Baylis, maintained that all work was conducted in strict adherence to official regulations.
He explained that a preliminary investigation carried out by Crucial Environmental, a laboratory holding UKAS accreditation, had confirmed the presence of chrysotile asbestos in the roofing materials prior to commencement of any work.
The renovation plans, which received planning consent in 2025, involve constructing a single-storey addition at the rear of the property along with modifications to the existing roof structure.
These alterations include elevating the roof’s highest point and installing dormers at both the front and back of the building.
Dennis Burnett, an 81-year-old retired professional player who represented Brighton and Hove Albion and West Ham United, resides among those who voiced unease about the operations.
An additional neighbour, who requested anonymity, also raised objections, particularly given her family’s medical history involving respiratory illness.
Both individuals flagged their worries with the relevant authorities.
The unnamed resident disclosed that fragments of roofing material were being fractured during the work, a claim the property owner firmly rejected.
Mr Baylis insisted that no tiles suffered breakage.
He clarified that only a limited section of the roof overhang on the side extension required attention, as this particular area had developed structural weaknesses.
According to Mr Baylis, approximately thirty tiles from roughly three rows were extracted from this precarious section.
The principal roof expanse, covering around one hundred square metres, remained completely undisturbed.
He emphasized that every tile was manually handled, dampened prior to contact, and immediately enclosed in sealed double bags, all performed in line with guidance published by the HSE for this classification of task.
He noted that certain tiles had already sustained cracks due to natural aging and exposure to weather conditions, yet these were extracted using hand tools with their fastenings either severed or gently released.
No mechanical equipment was deployed at any stage.
Mr Baylis stated that he did not anticipate any release of fibres or debris beyond the immediate work area.
Regulatory guidance indicates that asbestos-cement tiles do not constitute higher-risk asbestos remediation and consequently do not mandate engagement of an HSE-licensed specialist, provided operations align with published recommendations.
The owner submitted formal notification to the HSE on July 30 outlining his intended methodology for safe removal.
An official from the regulatory body accompanied Mr Baylis during the August site visit.
Following the inspection, the HSE reported finding no evidence of unsafe working practices throughout the removal phase, though this assessment concerned the extraction process itself rather than subsequent disposal arrangements.
The unnamed resident had simultaneously contacted Brighton and Hove City Council after approaching the HSE.
A council worker, in a recorded message left on July 30, informed the resident that a colleague had communicated with Mr Baylis.
The employee stated that the property owner possessed a survey indicating the absence of asbestos, and that documentation would be forwarded for verification.
This information proved inaccurate, as both the property owner and the HSE subsequently verified that the tiles definitely contained chrysotile asbestos cement.
The council received notification from Mr Baylis on the same date as the voicemail was recorded.
A spokesperson for Brighton and Hove City Council clarified that local authorities possess no statutory powers regarding asbestos removal, with such matters falling exclusively under HSE jurisdiction.
The council representative explained that while staff did liaise with the site operator at the resident’s request and relayed information about an apparently completed asbestos assessment, ensuring compliance remains the HSE’s responsibility rather than the council’s.