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:
- What is PD control?
- How far does PD control extend?
- What if others resist control by the PD?
- 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
BULK BAG COLLAPSE CAUSED BY UNSAFE STACKING
Bulk bag collapsed onto workman when struck by fork lift
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 9th December 2019INTERLOCKED GUARD NOT WORKING TO ISOLATE POWER
Two workmen seriously injured when plant started unexpectedly
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 9th December 2019STREET FURNITURE RISK TO PUBLIC FINED £1.4M
Council prosecuted following injury to child playing on hinged bollard
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 9th December 2019WORKMEN SUFFER SERIOUS BURNS FROM CABLE STRIKE
Assessment and system of work failed to appreciate electrical risk
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 29th November 2019LADDERS WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR WORK ON ROOF
Workman paralysed after falling whilst installing roof ladder
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 28th November 2019FIRM FAILED TO MANAGE EXHAUST VENTILATION
HSE enforcement notices on wood dust and welding fume ignored
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 27th November 2019RECALCITRANT DIRECTOR BARRED FROM OFFICE
Dangerous telehandler used despite earlier fatality and enforcement
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 25th November 2019DIRECTOR HID UNSAFE WORKING PRACTICES FROM HSE
Workers exposed to sprayed paints containing asthma causing isocyantes
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 25th November 2019JAIL TERM FOR CONTRACTOR CAUSING GAS RISK
Roofer sentenced after work caused carbon monoxide release
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 22nd November 2019UNSTABLE STAIRCASE COLLAPSE DURING REFURB WORK
Workman not informed of staircase hazard suffered serious injury
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 22nd November 2019UNUSED SEAT BELT WAS “COMMON PRACTICE” ON SITE
Overturning dumper truck caused death of operators at spoil heap
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 22nd November 2019SELECTED NEWS POSTED RECENTLY ON TWITTER
Links to other construction health and safety related news reports
HSE LOOK TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR CDM SUPPORT
Council Inspectors focus on CDM client duties – asbestos, fragility and RCS
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 14th November 2019VERBAL WARNING OF DANGER IS NO DEFENCE
Hand of female worker entangled in modified metal drilling rig
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 14th November 2019UNDERGROUND CABLE STRIKE CAUSES 50% BURNS
Workman seriously injured using hand-held breaker to excavate post holes
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 14th November 2019HSE WELDING FUME REVISED GUIDANCE PUBLISHED
New research evidence on cancer link prompts revision on welding fume
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 14th November 2019VIBRATION MANAGEMENT FAILINGS FINED £600,000
Vital health surveillance, tool replacement and management found wanting
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 14th November 2019HSE ENFORCEMENT DATABASE LATEST UPDATE
View current online register of HSE prosecutions and enforcement notices
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 31st October 2019DEVELOPER AND DIRECTOR PUT PUBLIC AT RISK
Demolition undertaken without surveys and effective safety precautions
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 28th October 2019BY-PASSING MACHINE INTERLOCK FINED £1.275 MILLION
Trapped key safety system failed to prevent access to conveyor danger
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 24th October 2019HSE LOSES PATIENCE WITH ERRANT CONTRACTOR
Roofing firm fined £30,000 over failure to manage work at height risks
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 24th October 2019TRUSS ERECTION LACKED INTERNAL FALL PROTECTION
Carpenter fell and injured whilst falling with roof truss
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 24th October 2019WORKMAN FELL HEAD FIRST THROUGH ROOFLIGHT
Fragile roof dangers not assessed and properly controlled
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 24th October 2019STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER
CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues
Read the rest of this article »
Posted on 18th October 2019