As part of the UK Government’s drive to cut bureaucracy, some major changes are on the way in relation to the management of health and safety within the construction industry.
It is recognised that that the majority of fatalities within the construction sector occur in smaller constructions sites. It is with this in mind that the HSE are focusing on simplifying the current Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM), so they are easier to understand by those in control of small and medium projects.
Under the proposed regulations, it will be a duty of the Client to inform the HSE for a construction project which lasts 30 days with more than 20 workers occupying the site simultaneously or project exceeds 500 person days. Through the addition of requiring the 20 workers in order for a 30 day project to become notifiable, this may mean the notifiable projects are reduced by approximately 50%, allowing the HSE to focus on targeting smaller construction sites.
When the new Regulations come into force there will be a replacement of the CDM Coordinator (CDMC) role, with that of a Principal Designer who is appointed by the Client. The need to appoint a Principal Designer will be where a project involves more than one contractor on site. It is hoped that through the removal of the CDMC role and the introduction of the Principal Designer, which has responsibilities for health and safety in the design team, that health and safety may be integrated within the project from the outset. Domestic clients will also have duties for domestic projects, which can be transferred to the Principal Designer and/or Principal Contractor.
The proposed Regulations remove the need to assess competency, which was seen as one of the elements of the current Regulations that is overly bureaucratic and replace this with a legal obligation on the Client to ensure that the parties they appoint are able to demonstrate appropriate information instruction, training, and supervision.
Construction phase coordination duties are to remain with the Principal Contractor, but the current proposals do not make any provision for an independent role, as currently provided by the CDMC, to protect the Client.
It was recognised by the HSE the that the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) associated with the current Construction Design and Management Regulations is too large, and the original proposal was to remove the ACoP and replace it with industry specific guidance. However, the HSE has since changed tack following a review of the responses to the consultation document and a slimmed down version of the Approved Code of Practice will be retained, but industry specific guidance will also be issued.
Under the proposed Regulations, more onuses will be placed on the Client to ensure that both the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor which they appoint comply with their legal duties. Though at present, there is no further information on how the Client will be able to demonstrate this compliance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nothing new in this interpretation of the draft which came out sometime ago and the subsequent publication of the consultation.
My approach seems to be different to others, perhaps this is worrying? Surely this is a prime opportunity for the construction industry to embrace the opportunity to remove a lot of chaff that has built up over the years? Embracing a holistic approach that focuses on real risk not niff naff and trivia and makes people accountable has got to be a positive.
I’ve not taken a hypocratic oath or anything but as a safety professional my aim is to keep people safe at work and beyond into old age not fee earn for the directors. I see the CDMReg2015 as a positive tool to allow health and safety professionals to add value to projects and do what they’re trained to do. Remember during this festive period; the Glass is always half full.
It should also be seen as an opportunity for clients and designers/architects to consider health and safety on a project way before a contractor is even appointed. As an SME contracting company all too often we get onto site and find that major design decisions have either not been considered from a health and safety aspect or haven’t even been confirmed yet.
‘The need to appoint a Principal Designer will be where a project involves more than one contractor on site’
Does that mean more than one main contractor or is it meant to include subcontractors?
Having worked as a Planning Supervisor and CDM Co-ordinator under CDM 1994 and 2007, I am struggling to understand how the reduction in the numbers of notifications will help HSE in pick up smaller projects. This change just seems to be related to matching what is in the original directive.
The main reason a new industry was born in 1994 i.e. Independent CDM duty holders, was because designers were reluctant to pick up the batten. What has changed to make HSE believe that designers will do it now?
Over the last 20 years the Planning Supervisor Role has developed to allow clients to appoint a totally independent CDM Adviser with “legal duties” to comply with. If, as the Association for Project Safety are hoping, the “Principal Designer” (PD) turns to former CDM Co-ordinator’s for help, it is the PD that still holds the legal duty, and that opportunity for “total” independence is lost.
Will this change bring simplification and improvement, or just remove an extra pair of eyes to keep designers and contractors on their toes?
In support to Phil’s comment of 19th Dec – it is clear someone somewhere has got to HSE… and watering down what was becoming a savour to the industry and its accident rates. I was a PS in its early days and saw improvements time and time as we worked as CDMC’s . Cleaning up the 2007 version was needed but to pass it off to the ‘Designer’ – whom never wanted it from day one and fought against changes that a CDMC offered and/or need to ensure a safe project is going to missing to the decreasing incident stats. Savings may be had but to the cost of personal injuries to others as Clients reduce safety funding for profit. The profit to No injuries still needs more work. What now of the CDMC, does he/she become the conscience on the shoulder of the Client. I concur with Phil.
The client will require to demonstrate they have endured managements arrangements are put in place and applied.
Without monitoring they will have show strong leadership through recording required actions from design to pre- start to progress meetings have been implemented.
The Principal Designer will have attend and ideally chair DTMs to be effective and will require more resource than what is given by the CDMC.So the story it will save money and the Architect will do it at no extra cost will be certainly tested.
Either the client does pay for carrying out the duties or they will run the risk of the PD cuffing it and issues will arise.
I have already heard that one developer says that their Architect will do the Pad role for no extra cost and at stage D of the design following the D&B route their PC will then noviate the PD to carry on doing the role.
Therefore losing any impartiality and governance.
You pay for what you receive comes to mind.
Interesting times where clients will try to and think they have off loaded their legal responsibilities through commercial contracts!