Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    CDM REGULATIONS 2015: PD PAID TO BE IN CONTROL?

    Risk of serious non-compliance by CDM 2015 project clients

    The requirement for a client appointed Principal Designer (PD) under CDM 2015 is causing head scratching amongst clients, designers and contractors with some interesting variations in how the requirement is interpreted.

    In some cases clients are retaining a detached third-party as PD (on the lines of the former CDM-C) rather than appointing a party engaged in design on the project in hand. This despite the HSE declared intention to “embed” the PD duty holder within the project design team.

    So what are the implications?

    Effective PD control is essential

    A key defining characteristic of the PD appointment is that the person (usually a corporate body) appointed must be “a designer with control over the pre-construction phase (PCP)”.

    The CDM 2015 definitions of “design” and “designer” are sufficiently broad to include most parties involved in construction projects. However, the requirement for PD “control” is more problematical and begs a number of questions, for example:

    1. What is PD control?
    2. How far does PD control extend?
    3. What if others resist control by the PD?
    4. What power does the PD have to secure the required control?

    In the absence of further guidance from HSE project clients and others must apply common sense. We offer some initial thoughts below.

    Client is the source of resources and authority

    Control over the PCP implies power and the typical dictionary definition of control is “The power to influence or direct people’s behaviour”. However, the regulations do not provide explicit powers to the PD and hence the only possible source of authority is the client who appointed the PD.

    The client will therefore need to be sure that the PD is given sufficient powers within the terms of their PD appointment. The client will also need to make clear what the PD can and should do in the event of a serious dispute over the extent of PD control.

    One thing is sure. The PD responsibilities go well beyond those of the former CDM-C role by involving “control” over the PCP plus the planning, managing and monitoring of the PCP.

    Appointments must be backed by sufficient fees

    Some potential PDs have experienced reluctance by clients to match the PD appointment with commensurate fees.  This is dangerous territory for the client when lawyers advise that:

    “… there should be a reference to payment for these extra (PD) services. Unless the principal designer is paid, a client will not be able to satisfy its obligation to “make suitable arrangements for managing a project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources” (Regulation 4(1)). Equally, it would be impossible for a principal designer to carry out the obligations of that role properly without spending time and effort on them”

    Construction project clients risk serious non-compliance if the above issues are not considered and clarified at the outset. The client will need to address these issues at the time of PD appointment and take steps throughout the project to check that the PD is exercising effective control over the PCP.

    Organisations formerly offering CDM-C services might quite legitimately be appointed as a project PD. However, HSE may be concerned if the actions exhibited by the PD are those of the stereotypical CDM-C with no evidence of behaviour that could be described as properly resourced “control” of the PCP.

    This situation would leave both client and the appointed PD at risk of enforcement action and/or HSE Fee for Intervention charges.

    The HSE Legal Guidance and CITB/HSE Industry Guidance provide some clarity as to what actions might comprise adequate control by the PD.

    CDM 2015 Information and Templates

    See CDM 2015 Survey Results for the findings of our CDM 2015 Five Minute Online Survey.

    We have published a great deal of further information and templates designed to support Clients, Designers, Principal Designers/Contractors and Contractors in meeting their duties under CDM Regulations 2015.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    POSITIVE STORY ON FRAGILE SURFACE HAZARDS

    Major roofing contractor testifies to working from below roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    LEISURE CENTRE USER FELL ILL AFTER SHOWER USE

    Legionella risk assessment and control measures found wanting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    STONE CUTTING MACHINE GUARDS FAILED HSE TEST

    Precautions taken following HSE enforcement fell into disuse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    ROOFWORK CREATED CARBON MONOXIDE RISK

    Falling rubble damaged and blocked home chimney flue

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 12th DEC 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th December 2018

    HSE SAFETY ALERT: TOWER CRANE BRAKES

    Collapse of tower crane jib in high winds prompts HSE warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    VISITING ENGINEER CRUSHED BY SCAFFOLD TUBES

    Principal contractor “signed off” contractor storage arrangements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    CONCRETE EJECTED BY PUMPING UNIT CLAIMED LIFE

    Company and director failed to train and supervise pumping operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    REFRESHED GUIDANCE ON FITNESS TO OPERATE PLANT

    Construction plant medical fitness Good Practice Guide

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR & LUL USED UNSAFE SYSTEM

    Work method to eliminate moving vehicle hazard not adopted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    OVERTURNING LORRY CAUSED DEATH OF DRIVER

    Groundworks project stockpiling arrangements not properly managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    FORTH BRIDGE LIFTING OPERATION NOT PLANNED

    Major project PC failed to plan, supervise and carry out lift safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    DEVELOPER FAILED ON ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    HSE inspection revealed refurb works without asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    POST DRIVER HAMMER CRUSHED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Unsafe system of work for vehicle crash barrier installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    WORKER FELL FROM LOFT THROUGH CEILING

    Major house builder lacked understanding of loft fragile surfaces risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    NEW SITE DUMPER SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Construction plant sector concerns prompts CPA consults on draft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    CCTV INSTALLER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT

    Contractor failed to properly plan and control the risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    VISITOR DIED FALLING INTO CONCEALED BASEMENT

    Contractor failed to protect basement void on domestic project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    RACKING FALL REVEALED UNSAFE SYSTEM OF WORK

    European firm fined £300,000 after UK sub-contractor employee fell

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    FAILURE TO ACT ON VIBRATION AND SILICA HAZARDS

    Worker health put at risk during stripping of furnace lining

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    MAJOR FM FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN BACK-UP POWER

    Power loss at laboratory site created potential risk from biological agents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    IGNORING HSE PROHIBITIONS COST FIRM £250,000

    CDM 2015 and work at height requirements repeatedly breached

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th November 2018

    ROOF COLLAPSED UNDER EXCESS LOADING

    Director and company fined over roof design failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th November 2018

    FORK LIFT OVERTURNED IN SCAFFOLDING YARD

    Untrained operator suffered life changing crush injuries

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th November 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic