Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
December 21, 2015

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

A few sentences for designers

As 2015 rapidly disappears in the rear-view mirror it is worth reflecting on the changes the year has brought and the challenges these will present to us in the future, says Michael Spanczak

The new Construction (Design & Management) Regulations (CDM) came into force on 6 April and, with bated breath, we awaited the promised death of the CDM coordinator and realisation of cost savings. They say leopards cannot change their spots but, in the case of the CDM coordinator, many of them have managed to change their spots for stripes and are now in demand as CDM advisors. Perhaps Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr was right: the more we change, in this case CDM, the more things stay the same.

To be fair, there have been real changes as a result of CDM 2015, not least the greater clarity given to the key responsibilities of the client and designer. We can now see that the buck ultimately stops with the client, and designers can no longer hide from “safety by design”.

The end of 2015 saw the publication of the new sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences, which come into effect on 1 February 2016. Some see this as the single most significant development since the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 received Royal Assent on 31 July 1974. Well, perhaps and perhaps not.

What cannot be doubted, however, is that the impact on sentencing for health and safety offences will be significant. For example, we should see an end to pitifully low fines for serious offences – the sort of fines that allowed some people and organisations to make a moral calculation and perhaps treat fines as a cost of doing business the way they want and not as it should be done, i.e. safely.

Both of these changes are interesting in themselves, but perhaps more interesting to anyone “doing” construction is how they will interact with each other and how this interaction will affect the construction sector. Only time will tell, once interpretation and qualified opinions crystallise and are consolidated into sector guidance and agreed practice standards, and judges hand out the first new sentences. However, we should not simply sit passively and wait and see what the judges say; as we move into 2016 we should reflect on the things we know and take action before action is taken against us. Considerations such as:

  • If there is an increasing appetite for prosecutions of both organisations and individuals for health and safety offences, what can we do to protect those organisations and the individuals?
  • The CDM 2015 Regulations and the HSWA 1974 set a framework for regulators to follow the construction food chain. Will there be greater focus on the role of design and the designer when a serious incident is considered for prosecution? What processes and procedures are in place to avoid unintentional breaches of regulations and are they fit for purpose?
  • The duties of client and designer to provide useful data for the end users, so they can plan for safety, may become a factor in future investigations and when considering serious breaches. How are these data maintained and made available? Bearing in mind that the health and safety file must be maintained for the life of the asset, and as we move to the use of “cloud” storage, how will the data be protected, updated and remain retrievable for the whole life of the built asset – which could be many decades?
  • The duty of designers to integrate safety by design into the wider design process and how this can be demonstrated may become a factor in future investigations and when considering serious breaches later in the asset lifecycle. Given that design modelling systems, e.g. BIM, potentially make design decisions more transparent, does this mean a poor or ill-considered design decision will come back to haunt the designer perhaps some years later?

Recognising that the potential cost of legal penalties will significantly outweigh the cost and effort of getting health and safety right in the first place, it would be wise to take these issues into consideration now.

Michael Spanczak is principal consultant at Turner & Townsend

 

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments