What we need to produce an accurate scaffold design (and how it saves you money)
A “cheap” scaffold design brief is often the most expensive thing on the job.
When key information is missing, the designer has two choices:
Assume worst case (more tube, more ties, more cost), or
Issue RFIs (delay, redesign, grief).
A proper enquiry pack lets us design something that’s safe, buildable, and proportionate — and that usually means less material, fewer site changes, and fewer stoppages.
Under CDM 2015, designers must eliminate or reduce foreseeable risks “so far as reasonably practicable” and provide information to help others fulfil their duties.
So the more accurate your inputs, the better we can do that job.
The designer’s “must-have” list
1) Site basics
Send:
Site address + postcode (and what3words if you use it)
A couple of wide photos of the elevations/area
The purpose of the scaffold (access only, façade works, roofing, M&E, etc.)
Why it saves money: reduces site visits, avoids “designing blind”, and prevents a basic access scaffold turning into a complex temporary works problem halfway through erection.
2) Dimensions and geometry (the stuff that stops assumptions)
We need:
Overall scaffold lengths and heights
Lift arrangement (number of lifts, lift heights if non-standard)
Bay lengths, returns, corners, setbacks, changes in plan
Any constraints: narrow pavements, highways, neighbours, fragile roofs, etc.
Why it saves money: accurate geometry avoids overdesign (extra lifts/bays/bracing) and reduces rework when the scaffold doesn’t fit reality.
3) What will it be used for (and what will be loaded on it)
Tell us:
Is it access only or will materials be stored on lifts?
Any loading bay requirement (and what load you intend to land)
Any hoists, rubbish chutes, gin wheels, materials elevators
Any special operations (stone replacement, façade retention interface, etc.)
Why it saves money: load drives member forces, leg loads, tie demand, and foundations. If you don’t define loads, we must assume conservative values, which inflates the design.
4) Wind “add-ons”: sheeting, netting, signage, temporary roofs
If anything reduces permeability or increases projected area, we need it stated up front:
Debris netting / monoflex / full sheeting / shrink wrap
Banners or large signage
Temporary roof / encapsulation plans
Why it saves money: these items can change the governing load case and tie forces. Getting it wrong causes redesign, additional ties, and programme pain. Also, TG20/TG30 “standard configuration” routes rely on staying within scope.
5) Tie strategy constraints (this is usually the make-or-break)
We need:
Façade type (brick/block/concrete frame/steel/cladding/stone)
Any “no-tie zones” (glazing, curtain walling, heritage façades, services)
Known weak substrate areas / recent repairs
Whether tie testing will be carried out (and who by), if applicable
HSE is explicit: scaffolds must be tied/braced/stabilised; ties must be within their safe working load; install ties as the scaffold is erected; and if a tie is removed, an equivalent tie must be provided nearby to maintain stability.
Why it saves money: if we know tie constraints early, we can design a buildable tie pattern (or alternative stability solution) instead of a “perfect world” layout that fails on day one.
6) Ground and support conditions (where scaffolds quietly die)
We need to know:
Is it on firm ground, a suspended slab, over vaults/basements, near services, on fragile roofs, etc.?
Any bearing limits or “do not load” zones
Any requirement for spreaders, grillages, or back-propping considerations
Why it saves money: avoids settlement issues, avoids last-minute “we can’t put standards there”, and prevents expensive remedial work.
7) Interfaces and third parties
Tell us if the scaffold interacts with:
Public highways / pavement gantries
Rail (possession constraints, CAT III triggers, approvals)
Neighbouring properties / party walls
Complex temporary works (façade retention, propping, restricted access zones)
Why it saves money: third-party requirements are where late surprises become expensive surprises.
8) Programme and sequencing constraints
We need:
Required design turnaround and erection sequencing
Any phased erection/dismantle
Any “live areas” where access must be maintained
Whether the scaffold will be altered frequently as works progress
Why it saves money: sequencing governs temporary stability and can dictate extra bracing/ties or temporary measures.
The “how it saves you money” bit (the real-world version)
A good enquiry pack typically saves money by reducing:
Overdesign (worst-case assumptions → unnecessary tube/ties)
Redesign (changes discovered mid-erection)
Downtime (waiting on revised drawings/calcs)
Abortive labour (teams standing around while the scaffold is “made to work”)
Compliance headaches (audits, handovers, inspections questioning undocumented changes)
And it helps you stay on the right side of inspection expectations too: HSE guidance states a construction scaffold should be inspected before first use and then every 7 days, and after events likely to affect safety (e.g., adverse weather or substantial alteration).
Copy/paste enquiry checklist (send us this and we can move fast)
Site address + what3words + contact name/number
Photos (wide shots + close-ups of constraints)
Dimensions (length/height, returns, setbacks, special areas)
Intended use and loads (access only vs storage; loading bay/hoist/chute)
Sheeting/netting/wrap/signage/temporary roof intent
Façade type and tie restrictions (incl. no-tie zones)
Ground/support constraints (slabs, basements, services, bearing limits)
Any public/rail/highways interfaces
Programme and sequencing constraints
Bottom line
If you give us the right inputs up front, we can produce a design that’s safer, simpler to build, and cheaper to erect — because it’s engineered around reality, not assumptions.