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

    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

    RIBA PUBLISH DRAFT POST GRENFELL FIRE SAFETY PLAN

    Architects institute consults on ‘golden thread of fire safety information’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    MAJOR UK CONTRACTORS HIT BY MAJOR FINES

    Firms ordered to pay over £3m after foot trapped in rotating ‘screw’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 19th SEPT 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    DRIVER DIED TRAPPED BETWEEN TRAILER AND VEHICLE

    Firm fined £1.5 million over failure to assess coupling operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th September 2018

    ACTUAL SYSTEM OF WORK WAS OPPOSITE OF RAMS

    Workman fell 4m through fragile asbestos roof sheet

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th September 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FUNCTION MISUNDERSTOOD?

    Consultants claim CDM 2015 design risk management has ‘gone backwards’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th September 2018

    RISK ASSESSED PRECAUTIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED

    Action not paperwork essential to prevent fall during lifting operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th September 2018

    CROSSRAIL PUBLISH BEST PRACTICE H&S GUIDES

    Sharing major project best practice can leave a lasting legacy

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    SCHOOL STAFF LACKED ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING

    Council fined £200k over asbestos flue and gasket rope failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    INCIDENT: MEWP OVERTURN IN CITY CENTRE

    Images show aftermath of mobile elevating platform collapse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    SAFETY ALERT: DEFECTIVE SCAFFOLD COUPLER

    National Access and Scaffolding Confederation issues warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    DEMOLISHING INTERNAL WALL REVEALED ASBESTOS

    Firm lacked survey and asbestos management plan for premises

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    NEW HEALTH AND SAFETY TEST FOR ARCHITECTS

    RIBA raise the bar for members on design risk management and ‘life safety’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    POWER BUSINESSES FAILED ON LIFTING OPERATION

    Panel fell on workman during turbine maintenance project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE FIRM COMMITS TO ZERO HARM

    Behaviours to deliver zero lost time injury incident rate by 2021

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    MANAGING TOWER CRANE FALLING OBJECT RISK

    CPA issues new technical information note

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    POST EXPLOSION ASBESTOS WORK WAS UNSAFE

    Asbestos cement panels removed and cut with power tools

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    FALL THROUGH UNFLOORED FACTORY ROOF SPACE

    Non-routine tasks require assessment and clear risk controls

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    SEVENTH LONDON CYCLIST DEATH DURING 2018

    Building products vehicle involved in death of Queens doctor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th August 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR FAILED TO SUPERVISE LIFT

    Errors whilst lifting pre-cast concrete blocks fined £600,000

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    FIRM FINED £400,000 OVER VIBRATING TOOLS RISK

    Hand-held orbital sanders, rivet guns, grinders and drills caused harm

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    OVERHEAD POWER AND EARTHING OF SCAFFOLDS

    NASC combines updates advice on scaffold electrical risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2018

    REVERSING VEHICLE CLAIMED LIFE OF ‘BANKSMAN’

    Workman trapped whilst assisting colleague in reversing lorry

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th August 2018

    TWO WORKMEN DIED IN SPRAY BOOTH EXPLOSION

    Flammable vapour ignited by ignition sources present at the scene

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    SOLAR SPECIALIST FAILED TO PLAN FOR SAFETY

    Fragile roof failed under weight of solar installation worker

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic