Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Lishka0  
#1 Posted : 13 March 2014 11:43:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lishka0

We are looking to develop some in house CDM-Cs and following the competency set out within the Regs we are using this as a guide to develop them. However, we have a few who have H&S background but not so much with the Designer/Surveyor side to have enough points to become a member on the APS CDM-C register. I was wondering whether for smaller re-furbishment works this is an actual requirement to be on the CDM-C register? Also, with regard to the actual regs possibly changing around this (with the CDM-C role looking to be tagged onto the Designer) is it actually worth training these people up to be CDM-C? Can anyone advise what would be best to do at this stage?
firesafety101  
#2 Posted : 13 March 2014 11:46:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

IMO for smaller projects there is no need to be on APS or any other register as long as the person has the required competence for the job. Small projects have lesser issues and lots of people with H&S experience in construction could do the job well.
bob youel  
#3 Posted : 13 March 2014 12:21:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

If the new CDM regs end up as proposed there may be no such thing as a CDMC shortly so U may be wasting your £ to some extent. However get people adequately trained in any case as the client has the duties irrespective so training with help protect the client; CDMC or no CDMC
peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 13 March 2014 13:00:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Lishka In the early days of CDM 1994, HSE made it abundantly clear that they did not see a need for any new professional body to support what was then the Planning Supervisor. We ended up with at least 4!!
paulw71  
#5 Posted : 13 March 2014 14:18:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paulw71

peter gotch wrote:
Lishka In the early days of CDM 1994, HSE made it abundantly clear that they did not see a need for any new professional body to support what was then the Planning Supervisor. We ended up with at least 4!!
That didnt stop the HSE quoting membership of some of the aformentioned professional bodies as evidence when it came to demonstrating core competencies for CDMC in the acop (albeit later in 2007).
peter gotch  
#6 Posted : 13 March 2014 17:30:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Paul Sometimes HSE has a poor memory.
boblewis  
#7 Posted : 13 March 2014 17:55:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Peter They hate being reminded of it as well:-) They created the CDMC/PS monster and are busily blaming everyone else. Bob
John M  
#8 Posted : 13 March 2014 20:42:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

peter gotch wrote:
Lishka In the early days of CDM 1994, HSE made it abundantly clear that they did not see a need for any new professional body to support what was then the Planning Supervisor. We ended up with at least 4!!
Exactly! The Regulations created the bedrock where legions of CDM creatures were spawned and have created chaos throughout the construction industry ever since. Add on the 49 PPQ outfits that have jumped on the gravy train as a result of poor drafting. Also consider the number of deaths in the construction industry in the first 11 weeks of this year - a large percentage of those employer outfits have be "approved or "qualified". Not fit for purpose. Jon
bob youel  
#9 Posted : 14 March 2014 07:27:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

The role of Planning Super and now CDMC if used correctly are good ones and can add in benefits but as for deaths etc. management is outside their brief as its up to clients/PC's to manage site and not PS/CDMC's Even if you have 50 CDMC's on one job deaths still occur as the average PC will do what they can to get jobs done fast, workers are afraid of their jobs and the average client just does not care plus the HSE has been completely ineffective as I said previously get staff adequately trained in design safety and give them power to act for the client in the day to day situations noting that if your employer does not really care whats the point
djupnorth  
#10 Posted : 14 March 2014 09:17:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
djupnorth

The High Court has just ruled on the issue of CDM competence (particularly in relation to the provision of the PCI) in the case of Victoria Wise (HSE) -v- MWH and I would suggest that it is worth reading the case or an article on the case. Regards. DJ
Steve e ashton  
#11 Posted : 14 March 2014 09:46:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Summary of case here: http://www.burges-salmon...d_safety/News/12791.aspx Extract: "In MWH, the court reiterated that one of the CDM Co-ordinator's duties is to check any pre-construction information and to advise the client regarding any gaps in that information. In this case, MWH UK Limited had failed to properly advise the client regarding the risk of the presence of asbestos and the absence of an asbestos survey. The court also held that the CDM Co-ordinator was the key safety advisor at the pre-construction stage of the project and was expected to be able to identify the nature and level of detail of the hazards to be addressed. The judge emphasised that the CDM Co-ordinator was not expected to have the expertise to make a detailed assessment of the hazards, but was expected to have sufficient expertise to understand whether they had been addressed, which was a matter of fact and degree in each case."
Steve e ashton  
#12 Posted : 14 March 2014 10:47:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

And the appeal case detail here: http://www.bailii.org/ew...EWHC/Admin/2014/427.html People who believe the CDM-C role does nothing but add unnecessary bureaucracy might be well advised to read this decision... It appears the Client knew that an asbestos survey was required (had done type 2, which noted need for type 3). The Principal Contractor included the need for an asbestos survey (type 3) in his Construction Phase Plan. Yet apparently HSE was justified in serving notice the CDM-C had failed in his duty by NOT advising the client (and the PC in pre-construction information) that an asbestos survey was required.... Even though this information was included in the asbestos survey (type2) which the client supplied and was included in the PCI which WAS supplied to the PC. So it seems that HSE (and the tribunal upholding the improvement notice) believe that the law requires a CDM-C to tell the client and PC what they already know.... The term 'bureaucracy gone mad' springs to mind - but don't blame the CDM-C... And the next time anyone from HSE is heard mouthing anything about 'proportionate, sensible health and safety' just remember they probably don't mean it. But don't blame the CDM-C please.
Stedman  
#13 Posted : 14 March 2014 10:47:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

Although there is Appendix 5 in the ACOP and Bob Lewis is also correct the CDM-C can be an organisation, CDM-C competence is still subjective as on one occasion last year I was even rejected by a local authority PQQ process as not being sufficiently competent with my CFIOSH and MICOB because I did not have a NEBOSH construction certificate! Competence is in the eye of the beholder.
peter gotch  
#14 Posted : 14 March 2014 13:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Steve Thanks for the link. I've shared with some of our staff. Very relevant to a lot of what we do.
John M  
#15 Posted : 14 March 2014 14:01:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

Stedman wrote:
Although there is Appendix 5 in the ACOP and Bob Lewis is also correct the CDM-C can be an organisation, CDM-C competence is still subjective as on one occasion last year I was even rejected by a local authority PQQ process as not being sufficiently competent with my CFIOSH and MICOB because I did not have a NEBOSH construction certificate! Competence is in the eye of the beholder.
Yet another example of PQQ madness. Is it not time IOSH became involved in attempting to curb this nonsense. Stedman. Why not write to SSIP and register a strong complaint and objection to your qualifications and competence. Jon
paulw71  
#16 Posted : 14 March 2014 14:41:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paulw71

John M wrote:
Stedman wrote:
Although there is Appendix 5 in the ACOP and Bob Lewis is also correct the CDM-C can be an organisation, CDM-C competence is still subjective as on one occasion last year I was even rejected by a local authority PQQ process as not being sufficiently competent with my CFIOSH and MICOB because I did not have a NEBOSH construction certificate! Competence is in the eye of the beholder.
Yet another example of PQQ madness. Is it not time IOSH became involved in attempting to curb this nonsense. Stedman. Why not write to SSIP and register a strong complaint and objection to your qualifications and competence. Jon
That ought to do the trick.
Ann E Seed  
#17 Posted : 04 May 2014 15:18:59(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Ann E Seed

steve e ashton wrote:
And the appeal case detail here: http://www.bailii.org/ew...EWHC/Admin/2014/427.html It appears the Client knew that an asbestos survey was required (had done type 2, which noted need for type 3). The Principal Contractor included the need for an asbestos survey (type 3) in his Construction Phase Plan. Yet apparently HSE was justified in serving notice the CDM-C had failed in his duty by NOT advising the client (and the PC in pre-construction information) that an asbestos survey was required.... Even though this information was included in the asbestos survey (type2) which the client supplied and was included in the PCI which WAS supplied to the PC. So it seems that HSE (and the tribunal upholding the improvement notice) believe that the law requires a CDM-C to tell the client and PC what they already know....
The actual text (in Paragraph 41 of the appeal judgment) of the type 2 survey (which was a report from White Young Green Environmental) only stated: “Prior to demolition or major refurbishment it is recommended that a fully intrusive WYGE type 3 asbestos survey be conducted, under controlled conditions where appropriate.” A "recommendation" is a long way from saying something is "required" or "needed". A lot of the time recommendations are over cautious simply to cover the possibility that something might go wrong and to avoid liability if it does. If all companies strictly adhered to all recommendations made in reports, there would undoubtedly be a lot of money spent that need not have been spent. Whether or not we should act on recommendations is where the competent advice of the contractor / CDM coordinator should come into play. It's easy in hindsight (even for incompetent advisers) to identify which recommendations are needed and which are not. The improvement notice served on MWH stated: “…I… give you notice of my opinion that…you….are contravening the following statutory provisions: Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Section 2(1) & 3(1) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, Regulation 4 & 20. The reasons for my said opinion are You, having been appointed in the role of CDM Coordinator by the Client, have identified and collected the pre-construction information, namely the asbestos survey report, without having the necessary level of competence to be able to give suitable and sufficient advice to the Client as to whether the information provided was adequate in relation to the construction work being undertaken" It's difficult to argue with this because MWH did not follow up on the recommendation with suitable or sufficient advice as to whether the "recommendation" needed to be a "requirement" in this particular case. The principal contractor didn't include the "need" for the asbestos survey (the word "need" is not mentioned anywhere), they had allowed for it in their construction phase plan. The fact that there was no survey (which had been included in the Construction Phase Plan) but work still commenced just goes to show that there was yet another means of being able to identify this gap or failure that was missed by the company who was ultimately responsible for coordinating the project, MWH. For MWH (as the project coordinator) to try to absolve itself of the responsibilities of competently coordinating a project, by blaming both the client and the principal contractor in its various submissions, suggests that we do need legislation to provide clarity on this issue. It does not suggest bureaucracy gone mad. My advice is that you should not put yourself forward for the role of project coordinator (and get paid handsomely for it) if you intend to rely on your client and subcontractors to do your job for you and make up for your shortcomings. It defeats the point of having a specifically appointed CDM coordinator if all other parties have to repeat the same steps as the CDM coordinator just to avoid the risk of a prosecution - now that would be bureaucracy gone mad! IMO this was a sensible decision on the part of the HSE and tribunal.
boblewis  
#18 Posted : 04 May 2014 21:50:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Remember the duty isto advise on the adequacy of the PCI and not advising that the INFORMATION re asbestos was inadequate the CDMC is in breach of the duty. A type 2 existed and the Contractor being asked to tender for a more detailed survey is a plain wrong approach by the client and he should have been clearly warned. A competent CDMC would have undersstood that this was necessary. It is not a question of telling people what is already known but rather what has been overlooked. Excellent decision by the courts. It furrther shows the danger of reliance on a single person to undertake the CDMC type duties either under 2007 or 20??? Bob
firesafety101  
#19 Posted : 05 May 2014 16:38:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

"Prior to demolition or major refurbishment it is recommended that a fully intrusive WYGE Type 3 asbestos survey be conducted under controlled conditions where appropriate." If you were CDM C would you follow this recommendation? That is to recommend WYGE carry out the survey?
firesafety101  
#20 Posted : 05 May 2014 16:49:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Please forgive me if I have missed the point but is this all about the fact that WYGE has recommended they carry out a Type 3 survey? Is there anywhere stating that the HSE or any other regulatory body has required or recommended a Type 3 survey? Is it the case here that the CDM C has simply ignored the recommendation of an Asbestos Consultancy? Is it now "case law" that a CDM C must obey the recommendations of such consultants? Do Designers and other such professional people now need to undertake training in the CAR12 ? Apologies for all the questions but trying to get to the bottom of this. Thanks.
DavidBrede  
#21 Posted : 05 May 2014 17:04:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DavidBrede

Clearly this area is in a state of flux due the the changes proposed by the government. I would hang fire on in house training till this is clear. I consult in this field so could advise you in the short term on existing projects if this would be helpful.
boblewis  
#22 Posted : 05 May 2014 23:04:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

David It is an important area for designers also and will be more so for any potential Principal Designer. Many safety professionals in construction find themselves involved in providing this sort of advice and far too often the need for experienced advice from those who have worked with asbestos is not sought. Would we treat radiation involved tasks in the same cavalier fashion? Probably we would not we all shout but I have encountered precisely that in a medical building demolition. This was an organisation with a little knowledge without real concept of what competence really means. Bob
DavidBrede  
#23 Posted : 06 May 2014 14:28:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DavidBrede

I was responding to the original post Bob.
boblewis  
#24 Posted : 06 May 2014 20:29:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

David Yes I know but it is well in the context of the likely spreading of the CDMC duties that the competence level has also to be increased by the new duty holders. The case certainly stands well up in assessing the need for appropriate competence and the operation of the right level of competence. Bob
frankc  
#25 Posted : 06 May 2014 20:55:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
frankc

Stedman wrote:
last year I was even rejected by a local authority PQQ process as not being sufficiently competent with my CFIOSH and MICOB because I did not have a NEBOSH construction certificate!
Give us a shout and you can borrow mine or we'll do the job between us.
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.