• Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    CDM REGULATIONS 2015: FLEXIBILITY -V- CERTAINTY?

    Clients and designers hesitate over new Principal Designer function

    The CDM Regulations 2015 have been in force for almost 6 months and the transition period from CDM 2007 Regulations draws to a close. By 6th October 2015 all UK construction projects must comply fully with CDM 2015.

    Whilst delivering CDM 2015 Training during the first half of 2015 we have encountered a degree of fear, skepticism and uncertainty on the part of clients and prospective Principal Designer (PD) appointees.

    Below we share our views on this subject.

    What has NOT changed in CDM 2015?

    The changes for Principal Contractors (PC) and Contractors are minimal. CDM 2007 required both parties to plan, manage and monitor health and safety risks during the project construction phase. These project management duties have been retained under CDM 2015 although the number of projects which require the client to appoint a PC has increased dramatically.

    Designers under CDM 2015 include a wide range of organisations e.g. architects, consulting engineers, surveyors, interior designers, temporary work engineers or anyone who specifies or alters a design including the client. The main duty of designers under CDM 2007 was to eliminate and reduce risks to constructors etc. when preparing their designs. This duty remains under CDM 2015.

    CDM 2007 required project clients to put in place ‘arrangements’ for managing their project. This duty has been retained under CDM 20015 which requires that clients must make suitable arrangements for managing their project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources.

    The client arrangements will be suitable if they ensure that the construction work can be carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks to the health or safety of any person affected by the project.

    What HAS changed in CDM 2015

    The client duties have changed in one very important respect.

    The client must now appoint in writing a party that is willing and able to carry out the new function of project Principal Designer with control over the pre-construction phase (PCP) and responsibility to plan, manage, monitor and coordinate the PCP.

    The PD is a new business function requiring actions beyond those required of the former CDM-C role.

    The change is causing some uncertainty and confusion for clients and project team members being asked to accept appointment to this new position.

    It is not difficult to understand their dilemma.

    For many observers the CDM-C was regarded as a role undertaken by an individual positioned external to the project team.

    The Association for Project Safety (APS) embraced the role and established ‘qualifications’ to become a CDM-C. In many cases, those carrying out the role focused primarily on the requirements for pre-construction information and the health and safety file rather than ensuring that design team members were avoiding risk during preparation of their designs.

    Other project team members often characterised the CDM-C as, appointed too late, ‘marginal’ to safety through design, ‘bureaucratic’, with a ‘tick box’ approach providing little ‘added value’.

    This caricature is grossly unfair to those CDM-C organisations who, when supported by the client, made a real difference at the project design stage. It was, nevertheless, the conventional wisdom and part of the HSE justification for abolishing the CDM-C role.

    However, this less than complimentary caricature provided a non-intrusive comfort blanket for everyone involved. The client discharged their duty, designers and contractors where not required to take on the CDM-C role and the arrangement enabled business to carry on as usual without too many difficult questions restricting design team autonomy in the interest of the health and safety.

    So, despite the undercurrent of discontent the CDM 2007 requirement to appoint a CDM-C provided a degree of reassuring certainty for all.

    Flexibility breeds uncertainty

    Introduction of the PD requires the client to consider who they might legitimately appoint, in writing, to discharge this new business function.

    The duties of the PD are set out in the Regulations, HSE Legal Guidance and Industry Guidance. However, the regulations and guidance are drafted so as to provide maximum flexibility for the client as regards the appointment, which should reflect the nature and scope of the project.

    In addition, all parties realise and are fearful that the PD appointment comes with new duties requiring control of the PCP and responsibilities to plan, manage, monitor and coordinate which did NOT exist under CDM 2007.

    These requirements mirror the PC responsibilities under both CDM 2007 and CDM 2015. Contractors have taken the PC function in their stride and the appointment has never been ‘outsourced’ to the equivalent of a CDM-C. However, clients, designers and contractors are unfamiliar with the new PD duties and uncertain as to how they might be discharged in the face of open ended flexibility.

    Questions being asked by clients include:

    • How do I assess the skills, knowledge, experience and capability required of the PD?
    • Can I appoint my former CDM-C organisation as PD?
    • What actions should I expect of the PD?
    • How should I check that the PD is carrying out their new duties?
    • What will happen if the PD fails to take sufficient action?

    Prospective PD appointees are considering:

    • How much more demanding is the PD function?
    • Do I have the skills, knowledge, experience and capability to accept appointment as PD?
    • Can I be appointed by the client as PD without consultation and agreement?
    • What fee should I charge for delivery of the PD behaviours and actions required?
    • What if designers get it ‘wrong’ will the PD face prosecution for design failings?

    It is therefore not surprising that many are now bemoaning abolition of the CDM-C and the certainty that role provided.

    The Way forward

    Project clients and PD appointees must be fully conversant with HSE and Industry Guidance which includes detail on the actions expected of organisations accepting appointment as the project PD.

    Our summary of the official guidance combines in one document all clauses relating to the required PD Key Actions and Behaviours.

    Consider the above and set out a costed schedule of services specifying how the function will be carried out. The client must ensure that the PD function is properly resourced. Clients should demonstrate compliance with this requirement by making sure that resourcing of the PD function is transparent in the written appointment.

    The apparent uncertainty about the PD function is illusory. There is ample information available and HSE has now issued supplementary Briefings on a number aspects of the client PD appointment.

    Clients and prospective PDs must have the self-confidence to embrace CDM 2015, set out their stall and deliver the PD function. In this way they will secure compliance and improve consideration of risk during the project pre-construction phase.

    Project clients and others who fail to grasp the PD nettle are, under CDM 2015, more likely to attract legal sanctions (including Fees for Intervention) alongside principal contractors and contractors who usually face accountability for project health and safety alone.

    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

    MASSIVE FINE OVER USE OF UNSAFE GAS FITTINGS

    College gas installation contractor exposed after multiple gas leaks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    TEMP WORKS DESIGNED BY MANAGER AND UNCHECKED

    Collapse of platform highlighted failure in temporary works management

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    RAISING SAFETY STANDARDS FOR CRANE LIFTING OPS

    Major crane seminar seeks to raise standards and share best practice

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    WORKMAN SURVIVES 6m FALL THROUGH ROOFLIGHT

    Unsecured boards provided to cover nearby fragile materials

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    MAJOR FACILITIES FIRM FAILED ON FLAT ROOF SAFETY

    Site specific planning lacking and safety standards not monitored

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    HSE ALERT: UNAUTHORISED ACCESS TO SCAFFOLDS

    hselogo1Regulator sets out new guidance to protect children and the public

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    ASSUMING OTHERS WILL ACT IS NO DEFENCE

    Incomplete edge protection caused 8m fall from roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    LEADING ROOFING SPECIALIST FOUND WANTING

    Risk to employees and the public after failure to meet required standard

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    SCAFFOLDER DEVELOPMENT EMBRACED BY INDUSTRY

    CPD training attracts over 2500 scaffolders during first year of operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th July 2018

    SECURITY PANELS FELL DESPITE EARLY WARNING

    Firm fined £1/4 million after worker crushed by falling fencing

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    VEHICLE STRIKE TRIGGERED FALL OF ROOF TRUSSES

    Manufacturer failed to identify a suitable safe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    INCIDENT: CHILD STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECT

    Wood falling from scaffold triggers arrest of two on construction site

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    IGNITION OF THINNERS VAPOUR CLAIMED TWO LIVES

    Refurbishment project director jailed over fatal use of flammable solvent

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    HSE LONDON REFURBISHMENT CAMPAIGN FINDINGS

    hselogo1Material breaches of law found at over 50% of London sites visited

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th July 2018

    CURFEW AND TAGGING FOR RECALCITRANT SCAFFOLDER

    Suspended jail sentence handed down after unsafe work at height

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th July 2018

    CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DEATHS RISE SHARPLY

    HSE report construction worker deaths increase by 27% during 2017/18

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th July 2018

    BUILD UK UPDATE KEY CONSTRUCTION H&S ADVICE

    Majors industry body endorses “go to” source of H&S information

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd July 2018

    OXYGEN CYLINDER “FIRED” INTO WORKSHOP

    Violent discharge of gas bottle seriously injured two engineers

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd July 2018

    PRISON SENTENCE OVER FAILURE TO MANAGE RISK

    Sole trader contractor ignored HSE advice once too often

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd July 2018

    DEATH EXPOSED MINIMAL MEWP MAINTENANCE

    Court told about “almost complete” lack of MEWP maintenance

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018

    CONTRACTOR FAILED TO IDENTIFY ASBESTOS PRESENCE

    ACMs disturbed during works and firm failed to take suitable actions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018

    FALL THROUGH ROOF ON LOCAL COUNCIL BUILDING

    Fragile rooflight fractured when workman ‘misplaced footing’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018

    YOUNG WORKER POSED SPECIAL RISK TO CONTROL

    Conviction highlights duty to young persons and the vulnerable

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018

    TOWER DEFECTS AND UNSAFE SYSTEM CAUSED DEATH

    Maintenance supervisor fell to his death through roof opening

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018

    UK MAJOR FINED £1/2m OVER HAVS RISK FAILURES

    Danger caused by poor management of vibrating hand tool risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st June 2018
    Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data