EVALUATION OF CDM 2007 PILOT STUDY REPORT PUBLISHED
Survey report data shows respondents views on CDM 2007 were ‘positive’
HSE has published a report describing the plan developed for the evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007), the findings from the pilot of the evaluation plan and options for a full evaluation of CDM 2007.
The pilot evaluation showed:
- Objectives: there are positive signs in terms of CDM 2007 meeting its objectives, with evidence of three being met and two being partially met;
- Concerns: some respondents report concerns regarding the effectiveness of CDM 2007 in: Minimising bureaucracy; Bringing about integrated teams; Bringing about better communications and information flow between project team members; and Better competence checks by organisations who appoint other duty holders;
- Costs: respondents were able to provide cost data. Some Clients, Designers and Principal Contractors reported no additional costs in complying with CDM 2007 on a project. The remaining Clients, Designers and Principal Contractors, and all of the Contractors did report additional costs in complying with CDM 2007 on a project; and
- Overall: on balance, the respondents’ views on CDM were positive as the benefits were viewed as moderate, whilst the costs were viewed as moderate or lower.
Conclusions
The reports draws the following conclusions from the work undertaken:
the full evaluation should assess the impact of all of the changes incorporated in CDM 2007;
- most of the respondents (87%) agreed that CDM 2007 was clearer than CDM 1994, and 96% agree that they clearly understand what their duties are under CDM 2007;
- respondents are using a range of contractual forms with CDM 2007 and most of the respondents (89%) agree that CDM 2007 can be used with the types of contract used in the construction industry;
- around half of the respondents (46%) disagree that CDM 2007 assists in minimising bureaucracy, whilst most of the respondents (85%) agree that CDM 2007 assists in managing health and safety;
- half of the respondents agree that CDM 2007 has helped bring about integrated teams (48%) and better communications and information flow between project team members (50%); however, a significant majority (ranging from 67% to 81% for the four relevant questions) of the respondents agree that CDM 2007 assists in facilitating coordination and cooperation;
- threequarters of the respondents (76%) agreed that CDM 2007 is helpful when assessing the competence of duty holders; most (83%) agreed that the client thoroughly assessed the competence of those organisations they appointed to work on the project; and most respondents (86%) agreed that the organisation who appointed them made a good job of assessing the competence of their organisation;
there are positive signs in terms of CDM 2007 meeting its objectives, with evidence of three being met and two being partially met. However, some respondents have concerns about the effectiveness of CDM 2007 in: Minimising bureaucracy; Bringing about integrated teams; Bringing about better communications and information flow between project team members; and Better competence checks by organisations who appoint other duty holders;
- a third of the respondents (15) reported negligible costs in employing health and safety staff / advisors when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, nine respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these four were Principal Contractors;
- over half of the respondents (26) spent less than £5,000 on preparing health and safety management systems when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these three were Principal Contractors and two were Contractors;
- over half of the respondents (27) spent less than £5,000 health and safety training when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, eight respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these eight, there were two each of Coordinators, Designers, Principal Contractors and Contractors (see Section 11.4).
- a third of the respondents (14) reported negligible costs spent on employing health and safety staff / advisors whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, ten respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these four were Principal Contractors;
- over half of the respondents (27) spent less than £5,000 on their health and safety management systems whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these three were Principal Contractors and two were Contractors;
over half of the respondents (25) spent less than £5,000 on health and safety training whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these two were Principal Contractors;
- over half of the respondents (25) rate the costs of CDM 2007 as low or lowmoderate, with another 12 rating the costs as moderate. Only seven respondents rated the costs as high or moderatehigh. Three of those respondents were contractors. Twentyone respondents viewed the benefits of CDM as 2007 as moderate. Ten respondents thought that the benefits were higher than moderate, whilst 14 thought that the benefits were less than moderate (see Section 11.7);
- on balance, the respondents’ views on CDM were positive as the benefits were viewed as moderate, whilst the costs were viewed as moderate or lower;
- half of the respondents felt that the question set was too long, and twothirds had difficulty in separating out the CDM 2007 costs from other costs. However, they found the guidance notes accompanying the question set to be helpful;
- a set of seven activities has been developed for the evaluation of CDM 2007. These address the issues identified in this pilot and provide continuity from the baseline studies;
Latest Construction Health and Safety News
LORRY RUNAWAY CLAIMED LIFE OF DRIVER
Workman died after being drawn under trailer
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 25th April 2018PETROL VAPOUR DANGER LEFT UNCONTROLLED
Workman suffered severe burns during refuelling equipment
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 25th April 2018HSE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 25th APRIL 2018
Prosecutions and enforcement notices update and analysis
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 25th April 2018ROPE ACCESS WORKER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOF
Prison sentence imposed on owner of rope access firm
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 24th April 2018FIRMS FINED £2M OVER FALLING PIPE FATALITY
Incorrect stacking of pipes triggered fall and crushing of workman
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 20th April 2018DOMESTIC PROJECT PC HANDED JAIL TERM
Workman fell from unprotected roof edge on dormer extension
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 20th April 2018MAJOR CONTRACTOR ERRED ON FRAGILE ROOF RISK
Firms fine £965,000 after painter fell through waiting room roof
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 19th April 2018HSE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 19th APRIL 2018
Prosecutions and enforcement notices update and analysis
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 19th April 2018STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER
CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 18th April 2018NEW BIM SPEC FOR SHARING H&S INFORMATION
Specification for sharing health and safety info during construction projects
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018MANAGERS FORGED ASBESTOS DOCUMENTATION
Removal licence obtained using fake training and medical certificates
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018FINE OVER INCORRECT AND MISLEADING SURVEY
Specialist asbestos company failed to detect AIB on demolition project
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018IGNORING HSE ADVICE PENALISED BY LARGE FINE
Contractor fined over £50k for persistent WAH and welfare failings
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018PRISON OVER BASEMENT EXCAVATION AND COLLAPSE
Building contractor jailed after house collapsed in Brighton
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018DEFEATING POWER INTERLOCK CAUSED FLASHOVER
Systems for managing electrical safety found to be inadequate
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 17th April 2018LADDER SAFETY FAILURES ATTRACT MASSIVE FINE
National window firm left workers to ‘own devices’
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 12th April 2018FALLING MATERIAL STRUCK WORKMAN IN EXCAVATION
Risks of working in and near excavations highlighted by incident
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 4th April 2018HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 4th APRIL 2018
Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 4th April 2018HOUSING ASSOCIATION FAILED ON VIBRATION RISK
Assessment, management and health surveillance all found wanting
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 3rd April 2018OCCUPIER AND CONTRACTOR FINED OVER FALL
Employee assisting contractor fell through roof during re-roofing project
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 3rd April 2018HSE FEARFUL OF GROWING ’BLUE TAPE’ BURDEN
ISO 45001 could generate fresh business to business demands
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 3rd April 2018HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 21st MAR 2018
Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 28th March 2018INCIDENTS: PASSER-BY STRUCK BY BRICKS
Pack of bricks appear to have fallen from crane
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 28th March 2018HSE RECONSIDER HOW TO INFLUENCE SMALLER FIRMS
Regulator advice and messages are failing to chime with the SME businesses
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 27th March 2018