Construction Manager would like to apologise for initially publishing incorrect information on the HSE’s CDM 2015 consultation proposals on 1 April – see here for the corrected version. The mistake arose because we failed to realise that the new proposals have broken with the CDM 2007 system that links notification of projects to the HSE via F10 notices with the CDM requirements.
To clarify the situation, the HSE consultation is now proposing separate triggers:
- simplified CDM requirements will apply to every project, for domestic and non-domestic clients, where there is more than one contractor
- notification of projects to the HSE via F10 notices will be required only for projects that last more than 30 days and have more than 20 people on site simultaneously, or exceed 500 person days.
The consultation document states that the new, higher notification threshold will result in the number of projects notified to HSE annually halving, from 115,000 a year to 55,000.
In addition, the HSE proposes to abolish the role of the CDM Coordinator, shifting their pre-construction coordination responsibilities on to the principal designer, and to replace the Approved Code of Practice with shorter, industry-written guidance that will have less legal force.
The HSE hopes this move will lead to a reduction in the industry’s enthusiasm for “competence” accreditation schemes, for contractors, consultants and individuals.
So what do industry representatives make of the new proposals? Dr Billy Hare MCIOB, a lecturer and senior research fellow at Glasgow Caledonian University, felt that the separate CDM and notification triggers could cause confusion.
“The 1994 regulations had different triggers for CDM and notification, and then they were brought into alignment in 2007. So this is a substantial enough change that people are going to be confused,” he said. “I think there will have to be more guidance prepared for the industry than they anticipated to facilitate the change.”
Hare is a member of the working group drawing up the guidance for principal designers. “We wrote the draft without sight of this document, so I think we will have to reassess it. The criteria of two contractors ultimately means that smaller projects will need a Principal Designer when previously they didn’t need a CDM Coordinator. ”
He added: “My overarching feeling is that the HSE is going down the route of ‘copy out’ from the EU directive, and not necessarily taking on board other views. The rationale for aligning it [notification and CDM] was to make it less complex, but that’s not how this version seems to me.”
John Wrightson, head of CDM and health and safety at architect Stride Treglown, felt that contractors on smaller projects not previously in scope could struggle with the CDM requirements to produce a health and safety plan and file, and questioned whether the HSE’s calculation of £30m annual savings to the industry from not appointing CDMCs would materialise. “The cost will just be hidden in the designer’s fee, so that’s a bit misleading.”
He also added: “At the moment, on [less than 30-day] projects where there’s no notification, there tends to be a lower level of compliance and oversight of health and safety. If you notify, that sometimes shifts the mindset – you’re on the HSE database and there’s a chance they’ll be on the phone.”
But Peter Caplehorn, technical director of architect Scott Brownrigg, welcomed the changes. “The problem I’ve got is with people trying to nit-pick. What you need to do is ensure that the project is constructed safely, and that should be in everyone’s DNA across the industry. We’ve struggled with these requirements [since 1994] because people want to amplify bits and pieces, and it just makes more work for people.”
Consultant Richard Thorne MCIOB, meanwhile, was concerned that CDM 2007 did not adequately recognise that Design and Build projects often see considerable design work continuing after the appointment of the principal contractor, and said he would be examining the new consultation document for evidence this had changed.
Comments
Comments are closed.
The industry should note that the proposed role of the Principal Designer does not replace that of the CDM Coordinator, only part of it – ie the coordination of the health & safety aspects of design & pre-planning.
The rest of the CDMC’s current duties (providing the client with advice and assistance) will not be required in the new version of CDM. Though it should be remembered that clients (as employers) already have an explicit duty to arrange for suitable competent H&S advice under the Management Regs (MHSWR 1999)
On Richard Thorne’s comment above the Principal Designer role will presumably be transferred to the Design and Build Contractor at construction stage. In this case the PC would also be PD.