Graham Taylor and Mark Dellar, Turner & Townsend, argue that the implementation of the new CDM regulations have brought about at least two significant implications: the appointment of the principal designer, and costs.
Just a month on from the implementation of CDM 2015 and the arrival of the new guidance in our inboxes, two significant implications are already becoming apparent.
The first relates to the replacement of the role of CDM Coordinator (CDM-C) with the new role of Principal Designer (PD). Having worked with our clients throughout the introduction of the new regulations we are seeing that many design organisations are either unwilling to accept appointments to the highly responsible PD role, or they are actually being persuaded against doing so by their insurers.
In our experience, many designers who are in control of the design are seeking the assistance of the appointed CDM-C to work with them as ‘CDM Advisors’ from October 2015. This means designers have competent support and access to existing health and safety expertise.
We have also seen clients electing to keep the PD role in-house and retain their CDM-Cs as CDM Advisors. Another attractive strategy is to appoint the project manager, with the support of the CDM advisor, to act as the PD. As project managers arguably have greater control over the pre-construction stage than designers, and oversee the process as a whole, this is a viable option.
(Incidentally, while the HSE online notification system was quickly revised to accommodate the new CDM 2015 duty-holders, transition arrangements have not been set up, so a CDM-C who updates an existing F10 automatically becomes a PD – a Freudian slip, maybe?!)
CDM-Cs are also in demand from clients who have limited access to construction safety advice and so are calling on these seasoned experts for support in carrying out some of their more onerous CDM 2015 duties.
Which brings us to the second implication: costs. Far from the new rules saving money it seems that they are increasing project spend. Designers are incorporating their increased legal liability into their fees, and all those CDM advisors who are supporting the designers and helping the clients with their day-to-day CDM 2015 duties need to be paid, too.
At this early stage, then, it would seem that CDM coordinators have grounds for cautious optimism. The construction-related safety expertise they have built up over the years is still required by the various parties, and forging new relationships should lead to working arrangements that will see the continued involvement of these experienced practitioners – albeit under a different title.
Graham Taylor
Mark Dellar
Graham Taylor is director at Turner&Townsend. He will be speaking at Safety & Health Expo in June.
Mark Dellar is a principal consultant at Turner&Townsend.
Project Managers may have greater control over the pre-construction stage but to be appointed as Principal Designer they must be a designer.
Client’s will appoint an organisation as Principal Designer and one their project managers could oversea the process – the potential danger is that this option puts Clients at risk by the individual who will not have control over any design elements or have relevant experience and knowledge with the duties of the Principal Designer role.
Clients would need to take into account PAS91 individuals competence as well as an organisations.
The Principal Designer doesn’t replace the CDM Co-ordinatior, CDM-C was removed and PD role created as a new duty holder. As much as former CDM-Cs may see an opportunity, the in house safety team of the PC working closely with the PD can also provide this safety advice. After all the whole CDM15 process was designed to remove extra cost by removing the scaremongering tactics seen previously during 94 and 07. As the CDM15 Regs clearly set out there is to be a close working relationship between PD and PC. This is how the costs will be kept down by… Read more »
I despair with the policy makers. Anyone that had worked with CDM 2007 and designers could have foreseen this coming. You would also think that there would have been dialogue at some point with the insurance world? After all they are the ones requesting the mountains of paperwork that the HSE say we should be avoiding!!
In response to David Cant’s comment; Principal Designer they must be a designer.
When considering who should be a Principal Designer it is worth considering the HSE stance, which is “The term ‘designer’ has a broad meaning and relates to the function performed, rather than the profession or job title”.
It is my opinion that as long as an individual/organisation can demonstrate their ability to understand the design process, apply a robust risk management process, has the health and safety knowledge and can coordinate the design team, they would be competent to fulfil the role of Principal Designer.
I whole heartedly agree with you Tony, well said.
Mark
The regs clearly state that the PD must be the designer in control of the design process during the preconstruction phase. This means that an individual can have as much design / health and safety knowledge as they want but if they are not in charge of the design then they cannot be PD
Regards
Some very good points on CDM 2015 above. Just wondering if it has occurred to anyone that until we achieve individual compliance in boardrooms right through to site workers, the regulations may not be effective at all. The real change has to be with cultural behaviour associated with the building companies/worker? CDM is vitally important so why is it not legislation for decision makers/duty holders to attend a thorough training course or at least a seminar linked with behavioural change, the written word is only effective if practised. Tenders should carry a percentage towards H & S and RAMS should… Read more »