The HSE has announced it will be re-drafting the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations for reissue in 2014.
A representative from the regulator confirmed the plans at an event held by the Association for Project Safety in May.
Details will be presented to the HSE board in December. However, the Executive indicated that the new Regulations are likely to be based more closely on the requirements of the EU Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive.
The Löfstedt report recommended that an ongoing review of CDM 2007 should consider a clearer expression of duties, a reduction in bureaucracy and suitable guidance for small projects.
A spokesperson for the HSE told SHP: “While many aspects of the [CDM] package work very well, such as the technical standards required during construction work, other aspects continue to cause concern for the industry, including coordination of health and safety prior to construction work starting.
“HSE is looking at how these concerns can be addressed, so the CDM regulatory package is focused on maintaining and improving health and safety standards for construction workers across the industry.”
Domestic work IS covered by CDM, only the domestic customer is exempt as he is the only party ‘not at work’ – remember CDM is an offshoot of the Health and Safety at Work Act). Contractors are ‘Contractors’ with all their attendant CDM duties. So is anyone undertaking design work, such as the architect, heating installation engineers etc, etc, all of whom are Designers.
As it is written; CDM regs have simply served as a paper-work compliance tool with which turn keys can tie up contractors. There is no evidence whatever that safety in design and planning has been improved, as their result, I think this review a move not before time.
Changes to CDM, when is the compliance date set for?
When I was an IOC with HSE, CDM was endlessly breached by all parties, yet few prosecutions reflected these breaches.
In 2009 the HSE brought guys in from industry and in 2011 we were all shown out the door – 30% cuts) the extent of our collective enforcement on SME`s influenced changes in intervention direction and CDM – Small sites being adopted for reference.
I hope that such changes are enforced with more commitment than I witnessed?
The WAH reg`s apply and the PUWER reg`s apply as does the PPE reg`s.
When employed by the HSE most of the Notices issued were upon SME`s engaged in domestic work.
Few if any had any clue about safety let alone health, never once did I find an asbestos survey having been undertaken, I even found asbestos landed in skips adjacent to the property on occasion. Designers rarely identified the risk themselves on any drawings submitted at planning application. No duty at planning stage to advise LA?
CDM reg`s 4-7 & 11-13 do apply, also reg 25 and the reference to reg`s 26-44 apply.
And on occasion the Notification applies where the Client works from home, this is then a commercial venture.
My concern is the lack of Duty Holder observation by all parties involved in domestic work.
I issued endless notices to all parties, competence was evidently lacking by all concerned.
These are often occupied premesis.
Competent contractors are not a condition at planning stage? They should be.
I can assure you that they will not like the confrontation and they will no doubt hunt in pairs for security reasons. I was often threatened.
No tea and buiscuits from the SME.
I never came accross a domestic Contractor that was not in breach of various regulatory compliance, so FFE should creat easy money.
I once issued 8 notices on a House Builder, can you imagine the fee that would generate?
Easy pickings,CDM, WAH, FAW, LOLER, PUWER, EAW, COSHH, MHSW will do nicely?
Trump cards AWR & a personal favaorite MHR, just as a back up.
Some how I cannot see this being allowed by DC and VC, could stifle free enterprise which is a top priority agenda.
Treading on LA toes is not allowed at HSE, I was repremanded for telling a council Structural Engineer that he was an ass, the contractor in question was clearly useless, inept and bloody dangerous. The worst TW I had seen in 30yrs.
How did he get on a tender list?
No competence to erect, No design and would not hold up a paper house.
Said contractor was removed, the structure was made safe, and the repair was re- designed.
Yet I was still advised by my PI not to be too hard on them?
A little unfare on the Sole Trader as he cannot liquidate himself, could try the bankruptcy route I suppose to avoid fees.
Although that would not help the government figures would it?
Also unfare that an SME is targeted with the same fee as a Stake Holder, disproportionate responce possibly?
Still, I get fined the same speeding fine as would Jenson Button, so maybe not?
Notification of domestic work will be like the notifiaction of tower cranes, usless and subsequently scrapped.
Notification does not ensure competency.
F10 jobs are notified yet many of them were and are found seriously wanting in regards to H&S compliance, and many more would have been had they been inspected.
So notifying more potentially unsafe sites is hardly likely to improve risk control?
If you are only complying upon seeing a yellow jacket the implication is that the rest of the time you ignore the rules?
Why comply any other time, chances of getting caught are minimal?
How many yellow coated policemen do you propose to enforce risk control?
Surely raising risk awareness and competency would be more beneficial?
The old ACoP had a chart showing duration of different elements of a project.
The Planning Supervisor, as was, was shown being involved from initial design to end of project.
As was compilation of the H&S File.
But, it did explain that the File didn’t actually have to be compiled by the PS himself, it could be done by eg a Management or Design & Build Contractor.
So how come CDM-Cs leave starting the File until the end of the job then dump it on the (ordinary) contractor?!
I wish I knew. The problem is, like many things in life, nothing is done until it goes wrong. Many clinets keep enaging CDMCs (usully too late) for peanuts. They don’t do the job right. Thta’s the truth but nobody dare say it.
It’s all about guidance, support, training etc. The usual hogwash that forgives poor standards by the industyr.
Personally I think one of the things that needs to change with CDM is not just encouraging early appointments – but enforcing them. This could be achieved by requiring notification at least 2 weeks (probably more) before site commencement. Like with licensed asbestos work.
eg. No work can start until 4 weeks from the date of notification and the notification has to list those appointed, to give contractors, CDM coordinators, designers, time to properly plan and arrange the work.
Ouch!! CDM regs. make no reference whatsoever to domestic work or its exclusion from the regulations!
The ACoP says a “Domestic client” has no responsibilities because he is not “in the furtherance of a business” so he does not need to appoint a CDM-C or PC but please rest assured that desingers and contractors working on domestic premises still have legal responsibilities!
ref: a contractor working unsafely …a photo e-mailed to the local HSE works wonders!
Just read the latest proposals. Looks like a watering down that is going to bring much incompetence back into the industry, we will have a rise in deaths and injuries with no legislation to protect the worker. We should be looking for continued improvement and not going back over. The HSE should be ashamed of themselves, here to protect yet sending out a message that the working man has no value
Any proposals for updating or improving the efectivnes of the regulations must address the issues raised where a ‘site’ is within the boundaries of a manufacturer. I provide coordination services within the food production industry.We regularly have develepment projects that are extensive ‘notifiable’ where the projects are carried out alongside food production. The demarcation of site boundies is dificult and may change hourly with management having redress to H&S but MUST include food safety.
Force notification of projects by linking to submitting for planning permission (PP). Currently applying for PP requires a legally statement on Party Wall compliance. Why not CDM compliance & Notification as well?. Linking planning & CDM will force designers and clients to make sure the Regs are taken account at the right time rather than leaving it to the last minute post tender when it’s too late, and the advantage the Regs bring to safety by improving construction design has been lost.
You will only improve the coordination of health & safety when you can force the designer or architects to inform their clients that a CDMC is needed right up front and not after early design work has taken place, i often attend projects where the contractor who has been awarded the contract has told the Client that a CDMC is required. In my experience there are far too many designers or architects that that do not know their duties under CDM 2007or ignore them so they can secure the work first.
Any alteration to the CDM Regulations should emphasise all construction, demolition and building maintenance work is covered by the Regulations.
It should give more details on who is a duty holder and what their responcibilities are.
It should introduce time scales for site set up as mentioned by others
It should give the CDM C more powers to stop dangerous work on site or not allow work to start without proper welfare facilities
all work requiring planning permission should be notifiable.
The CDM 2007 was written with a deliberate overlap of fire safety matters which also fell under the already issued Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Both pieces of legislation apply to construction sites. Despite the HSE being informed of this it was decided that the duplication of legislation would go ahead so that the EU Directive could be implemented in full by the CDM 2007 . If it is the intended to cut down on regulation perhaps the duplication could be cut in the 2014 rewrite.
Rob
I agree that ‘domestic’ work should be included in the CDM regs – it is scandalous what some builders are getting away with, whilst exposing those they employ. Also many in the business of refurbishment are using the domestic cloak to shiled them from applying the regs ie designers, property developers, etc.
Domestic work should only cover the owners of property doing work themselves. As soon as they employ someone the CDM regs should apply, in part at least.
Thats fine , just as long as safety is not watered down as the Government wants which would put us all in danger with very little recourse to the law
‘Domestic’ work carries as much risk yet it is specifically ignored by CDM. I would like to see some form of inclusion onto the ‘domestic market’ to try to prevent what I witnessed this week. I was told in no uncertain terms to ‘go away and mind my own business’ after I tried to offer some friendly advice to a local builder who had a 2nd lift scafffold with no edge protection and whose labourer was using a disc cutter while wearing soft trainers and no PPE.
It has been pointed out that CDM DOES apply to all building works. I know this, my meaning was that there seems to be no will by the HSE inspectors to actively seek out & challenge the frequently dangerous behaviour shown by some small builders such as can be seen in any local street. Maybe that will change in October when they start to charge – small builders on domestic extensions will surely provide easy pickings for the FFE hunters.
Well the ‘Powers that be’ do keep telling us that SME’s are the key to getting us out of recession. Maybe this is the way to do it – by imposing huge fines…
Well yes it could be seen as unfair, but then I think the whole FFI is wrong (but that’s another thread). To use your speeding analogy – why do we not speed if we see a yellow jacketed traffic cop pointing his meter at us? Is is because we know inherently that the speed limit is there for a reason – or to stop us getting a ticket. Odds on it is the latter. So if it is known amongst SME circles that they are very likely to be fined if they do not comply, who can they blame except… Read more »
The CDM Regs do work; anyone working in the construction industry for longer than 20 years cannot fail to notice improvements. A few tweaks could be made eg prohibition on work starting within 28 days of notification and standardisation of pre qualification processes.
The HSE have suggested splitting the CDM-C role into pre and onsite phases and placing the roles with designer and PC!
So the designer must add this to changes in Planning/ Build Regs/ BIM/CAD/BREAM etc. It aint gonna happen!!!
CDM legislation changes must remove blame culture, which appears driving “evidential” documentation, more acceptance of IT based communications and storage. CDM 2007 has generated a ‘back protection’ culture perhaps to stave-off legislative action (?), with reams of paper to maintain auditable trails. More time must be allowed by Clients to permit appointments to be made, together with pre-construction phase actions that are required. New ACoP to give guidance on typical timescales, etc.
In reviewing CDM, i would suggest some elements of the ROI’s construction regs be considered e.g appointments and notifications. Consistency would reduce the burden on many of the contractors based in NI who tender for works in the South and vice versa, in addition to the obvious benefits to the HSE in terms of knowing what sites are where and who is in control of them.
Pre-planning for projects is a subtle skill, but when done properly it aids safe working and creates efficiences in cost.