Turner Access Higher Safety Total Access
Total Access Ethentic Chipmunk Data
Chipmunk Data Turner Access 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

UPDATED SCAFFOLDING DESIGN E-GUIDE RELEASED

NASC launches enhanced TG20:13 eGuide scaffold design tool

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th August 2017

NASC LAUNCH FREE TO DOWNLOAD GUIDANCE

Access and scaffolding guides now open to members and non-members

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th August 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 9th AUGUST 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 11th August 2017

NEW GUIDANCE ON UNINTENDED PLANT MOVEMENT

Industry Plant Safety Group highlights hazards and key control measures

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 11th August 2017

SCAFFOLD COLLAPSE CAUSED BY LACK OF TIES

Falling structure narrowly misses passerby and lands on parked cars

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 11th August 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 2nd AUG 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 2nd August 2017

TRAINING IN CIRCULAR SAW USE FOUND WANTING

Joinery firm failures end in serious hand injury and £230,000 fine

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 26th JULY 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

WALL COLLAPSE CLAIMED LIFE OF WORKMAN

Failed to identify risks associated with free standing walls

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

WORKMAN FELL DURING WELDING WORK AT HEIGHT

Ladder access to water tank top was insecure and slipped when used

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

CCTV INSTALLER FELL BETWEEN FLOOR JOISTS

Principal Contractor and CCTV specialist failed to plan and manage risk

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

FACTORY APPRENTICE FELL DURING GUTTER CLEANING

Young workman stepped back and fell 9m through fragile rooflight

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

CROSS RAIL JV CONTRACTORS FINED OVER FATALITY

Firm prosecuted after concrete fall death and two other tunnel incidents

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

CONTRACTORS FAILED TO REVIEW ASBESTOS SURVEY

Major companies fined £1,000,000 plus over asbestos risk during refurb

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 31st July 2017

MAJOR CONTRACTORS LAUNCH H&S ALERT SYSTEM

Build UK members share information for effective prevention of harm

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 19th July 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 19th JULY 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 19th July 2017

STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

SCOSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th July 2017

SAFE SYSTEM DEVISED BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED

Workman injured by goods falling from double-decked trailer

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th July 2017

PREVENTION PLANNING REQUIRED FOR FRAGILE RISK

Fall arrest safety netting not used to mitigate fall consequences

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th July 2017

MANAGEMENT OF FORMWORK NOT UP TO THE MARK

Erector fell 3m after access scaffold board failed under load

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th July 2017

VIBRATION UNCONTROLLED & WORKERS UNINFORMED

Engineering firm fined £120,000 over hand-arm vibration risk

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th July 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 12th JULY 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 12th July 2017

SCAFFOLDER WAS UNTRAINED AND UNSUPERVISED

Contractor and director failed to train injured workman to CISRC scheme

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 10th July 2017

WORKPLACE MANSLAUGHTER OUTCOMES SET TO RISE

Guidelines target gross negligence with serious disregard and cost-cutting

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th July 2017

WORKMAN BURNT CLEANING WITH FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS

Flammable substance and unprotected electrical equipment trigger flash fire

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th July 2017
Turner Access Chipmunk Data
Total Access Ethentic
Higher Safety Turner Access