Posted By Robin V Boughton
My understanding of the Planning Supervisor duties does not include the specification of Risk Assessment for the Construction Phase Plan, he is out of order.
The info below is courtesy of Grove Services website at www.groveservices.co.uk

Common misunderstandings about Construction (Design and Management) Regulations are: -

That the planning supervisor is: -

§ Responsible for management or monitoring of H & S during construction.
§ Responsible for all H & S issues on and off site for a project.
§ Responsible alone for hazard identification and / or preparation of design risk management information.
§ Responsible for the provision of all CDM related H & S information required for the pre-construction H & S plan.
§ Responsible for all H & S aspects of the design including the function and operation of the structure and components.
§ Required to complete site safety inspections and safety checks.
§ Required to review all the principal contractors risk assessments, method statement and COSHH assessments.

The above are not planning supervision responsibilities.

The planning supervisors’ main duties under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations are summarised below.

§ To notify the HSE
§ Ensure co-operation between designers.
§ Ensure that pre-construction H & S plan is prepared with appropriate content.
§ Ensure that designers give attention to risk management in designs.
§ Ensure that an H & S file is prepared and delivered to the client – however, it must be established who prepares the H & S file for the client.

Services that the planning supervisor is required to provide if asked.

§ Advise on competence of designers
§ Advise on competence on contractors.
§ Prepare the pre-construction H & S plan.
§ Advise on readiness of the construction phase plan
§ Compile the file.

H & S = health and safety.

I hope this helps
Robin

Posted By Oliver Whitefield
Steve

I totally agree with Martyn's comments and feel that providing the client has asked for the PS to advise him on the suitability of the initial construction phase plan, the PS has every right to request site specific risk assessments.

Such specific assessments may however only be requested for key (high risk) activities such demolition works, asbestos removal, deep excavations, disconnection of services and working at height etc, together with other relevant issues such as site set-up, traffic management, liaising with other contractors/the client and how site safety etc will be managed (ie: future method statements, induction training etc etc).

Hope ths helps

Oliver

Posted By Oliver Whitefield
Steve

Robin is correct in saying:

'Once the Principal Contractor is appointed it is HIS responsibility to manage the construction phase and prepare the construction phase plan'.

However, what Robin has failed to note is that the contractor is not permitted to commence site operations until the client [who is usually advised by the PS - Reg. 14c(ii)] is satisfied that a suitable and sufficient Construction phase plan is in place (Reg. 10).

With regards to the content of the Construction Phase Plan, I would recommend you review the contents of Appendix 3 and paragraphs 240 -243 of the CDM ACOP (HSG224). Para 241 of the ACOP cleary states:

'The plan also needs to incorporate, or refer to, any required method statements, safety rules and monitoring arangements'.

Whilst I am not advocating that methods statements should be produced for each and every task before the Plan is approved by the client, I would normally require copies of site specific method statements for the HIGH RISK activities, as outlined in my previous response.

I certainly did not (nor in my opinion did Martyn) indicate that the HS Plan should be filled up with unecessary risk assessments or other clutter, however I would never advise a client to allow a contractor to proceed with the construction phase until I was assured that the Key risks and hazards have been given appropriate consideration! This does not mean, as stated in the ACOP, that the method statements have to be contained within the H&S Plan, but simply that they are in place.

The other factor you may need to consider is the contractual implications, does the contract require certain information etc to be in place at certain times?

Best regards


Oliver

Posted By Oliver Whitefield
Steve

Yes method statements can be prepared 3-4 weeks before an operation takes place, however, things can still change during this period and the MS may need to be reviewed/revised accordingly.

Oliver

Posted By Robin V Boughton
Bob,
I agree with you and hope that the powers that be revise Regs along such lines.The whole process has been to some extent highjacked by PS's who through ignorance or fee inflation take on roles and duties that are not defined in the current Regs or ACOP taking advantage of Clients who know no better. I have been involved with the Regs since they were first became operable and worst failing of Clients is not appointing a competent PS at the start of the Design process! 2 weeks or days before construction work starts is the usual scenario.
Robin

Posted By Robin V Boughton
It is surely the Clients responsibility to ensure that the Construction Phase Plan is 'as far as reasonably practicable' ready before the construction phase begins.
The Client may seek advice from other professional persons including the appointed PS but the responsibility is not that of the PS. See Reg 10.
Under Reg 14 the PS should be in a position to give adeqate advice to the client if so requested.
The operative words are 'adequate advice' and not specification or direction of what the competent Principal Contractor must have in his construction phase plan.The PC is responsible for management of health and safety during the construction phase and he has been assessed as being competent and adequately resourced to undertake the work already under Reg 6

Posted By Robin V Boughton
I see you use the word 'checks'. He should not dictate or specify the contents which is what the PS at the head of this discussion was attempting to do!
I agree that in most practical situation the Client will rely on the PS to vett the initial construction phase plan but it is NOT the PS's responsibility as most assume it is!

Posted By Robin V Boughton
My point is that if the competent PC's Plan is seriously deficient then surely the PS or other professional adviser should recommend to the Client to question the competency of the PC to undertake the work!!!!Construction is a fast moving activity and a plan that is correct today is most likely incorrect tomorrow as the risk environment rapidly changes. Any Plan is only a management tool and in my experience the KISS principle should be followed or else it sits on a shelf gathering dust.
There is another issue that most PS's lose sight of and that is the one of the limits of their Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
It is not a case of the PS taking any responsibility for the risk assessments adequacy. (He does not approve them, even the RA's for the initial construction activites which I would expect to be in the initial plan)

Rather he (on the client's behalf) is looking to ensure that the Principal contractor's plan is suitable developed to allow the works to be started safely.

In other words that the general arrangements for compliance with legal requirements have been put into place by the PC. That would include ensuring that suitable RA's are in place for the initial works.

If the risk assessments identify and deal appropriately with the hazards that can be identified before the project construction starts then (all other things being equal) work should be allowed to start.

If, once construction starts, something changes before a particular task begins it is for the contractor and PC to ensure that the risk assessment is revised.

Posted By Geoff Burt
Robin

In an earlier posting on this thread you wrote:

'Filling up the pre-tender Plan with unnecessary risk assessments and other clutter is in my opinion an indication that the appointed PS is almost incompetent because he does'nt (sic) understand his own duties.'

Could you elaborate for me - especially the latter part of the statement about incompetency? it seems to be a sweeeping generalisation that I would like you to back up.

Geoff

Posted By Geoff Burt
Well you've seen my views on what should be included - which would be risk assessments approved by the PS. And even perhaps other clutter you wouldn't agree with.

So in your opinion then .....

Posted By Robin V Boughton
Geoff,
I think we will have to agree to 'disagree'about what goes in the pre-tender plan. I personally see no need for risk assessment or statement of method.
The PS has to identify the HAZARDS that are presented by the nature of the proposed project and the likely arrangements required for the management of Health and Safety.
The PC must demonstrate that he has the competence and resources to effectively manage the construction phase dealing with the intial HAZARDS identified in the PTPlan and the HAZARDS that are generated by the construction work.
As the Client has appointed (usually through a rigorous selection procedure)a PC who has in being management systems to control risks, and usually access to Competent Health and Saftey Advice either internally or externally he will meet his responsibility to develop a Construction Phase Plan that meets his Statutory Obligations.
What goes in that Plan is the PC's responsibility, no one elses!!!He may well liaise with the PS to seek clarification on issues raised in the PTPlan but the degree to which he includes intial risk assessments and/or method statements is a matter for his judgement. He has to control the Hazards not the PS. He has to satisfy the Client that his Plan is suitable and sufficient not the PS.

Posted By Geoff Burt
Bob

If you are saying the PS is generally superfluous to a project I wouldn't have any problems with that at all.

My argument is that with the current setup - under CDM the PS has responsibilies that are clearly laid out in law. One of those is to advise the client if requested - and it is generally what happens in practice.

To be able to advise postitively the H&S plan must contain what is, in the PS's opinion, relevant information.

How do you do this without being shown the method of how the work is to be done or how the PC will tackle the associated risks?

Geoff

Posted By Geoff Burt
Actually Jason, it's a series of intelligent considered questions.

Unfortunately I wouldn't think of attempting to answer them on this forum. You can see the controversy generated by just one aspect of CDM.

I'll leave the answers to someone braver than me!

Posted By Geoff Burt
Robin

Forgive me for copying your response in its entirety but it allows me to respond at the right points - it was a rather a long missive!

1. The whole rationale behind the Construction (Design & Management) Regs is to improve (a) the design of structures so that risks involved in construction, use, ongoing maintenance and demoliton of them are reduced or eliminated where possible and (b) to improve the management of health, safety and welfare through the construction, occupation and eventual demolition of the structure. The Partys involved in implementing the regs have to demonstrate their competence to undertake the roles specified. ie planning supervisor, principal contractor, contractor etc.

Yup, OK so far.


2. My contention is that once this competence has been demonstrated and the party appointed then specific management responsibilites are held and there is a clear demarcation between the stages of the tender process and the construction phase.

Not a contention - this is fact.

3. There may well be quality issues relating to the appointment of for example the Principal Contractor but once the Client has appointed him he is surely deemed to be competent.

Part of the judgement by the client is based on, or should be based on, input from other parties. One of these is the PS. There are not many clients who are au fait with construction and the legal requirements.


4. Some in this discussion beleive that the PS has a role in dictating what must be in the Construction Phase Plan in terms of risk assessments and method statements for without such documents how can they judge the efficacy of the Plan.

That's me!

5. How far down this road do they want to go? The PC could provide a specific risk assessment for say site excavation based on his current knowledge of the site. Come the day such work begins site conditions may have changed so radically that the original assessment is almost meaningless.

Agree it may be. But the basis is there and the idea is that the H&S Plan is a live document which will be amended as the project progresses. This has been mentioned several times already by myself and other contributors.

6. For example its rained constantly for 3 weeks, the ground make up is totally different due to voids, ground water, unknown contamination, buried structures etc etc. So why require it??? S

The idea is that the PS raises the possibility of issues like contamination, buried structures, buried services at the pre-tender H&S plan stage. The PS then ensures the PC has made adequate provision for dealing with them.

7. Surely the important thing is that the PC demonstrates in his plan that he has the Management expertise and resources to assess the risks at the relevant moment and can implement the required control measures to satisfactorily control the risks.

Please demonstrate how this is done without some indication of how the risks will be dealt with.

8. It must be the PC's judgement as to what is relevant in terms of initial content that demonstrates he is competent to control the HAZARDS identified by the PS in the pre-tender plan and the intial HAZARDS introduced by his construction activity.

No problem with this - as long as the PS is happy they have been dealt with - usually by the provision of risk assessments and method statements.

9. For a professional advisor to Client eg the PS to go down the future construction road crystal ball gazing on behalf of a competent PC gives me professional judders.

Nothing to do with crystal balls - it is a good sense approach to see what is currently in place, if it is adequate, and how easily it can be adapted to suit the changing conditions. This will depend on the expertise of the contractor amongst other things and this will be reflected in the quality of the initial paperwork, and the contractors attitude in responding to reasonable comments and recommentations about the content.

Phew!

Posted By Geoff Burt
Bob

There is a danger of going round in circles here but lets try another approach.

Clients come in all shapes and sizes. Most (I do mean most) of them do not have the resources. knowledge and facilities to vet contractors - they recognise they do not have the competencies within the company and they rely on advice from outside sources.

Part of the aim of CDM was to introduce a new role of PS to fill this void.

The PS role is to advise the client on the suitability of the pre-tender plan with the aim of 'assisting' the client in choosing which contractor to use ie part of the vetting process.

There is no way, in my opinion, a PS can approve a plan if the relevant information is not included. Wouldn't that be tantamount to negligence?

It may be that the companies you deal with are set up to deal with construction and building companies in general but you have to recognise that many are not.

Geoff

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Geoff
We are not talking about the pre-tender plan but the initial construction phase H&S plan. The vetting process is not a problem until I have to repeat it for a PS who is unaware for whatever reason of the competency checks by the client. The guiding reg is obviously 15 in CDM

The planning supervisor is reequired to provide the matters specified in para 3 including (d)

"any other information whicch the PS knows or could ascertain by making reasonable enquiries, and which it would be necessary for any contractor to have if he wished to show
i) that he has competence on which any person is requiredd to be reasonably satisfied by reg 8
ii) That he has allocated or, as appropriate, will allocate adequate resources on which any person is required to be reasonably satisfied by reg 9"

These relate to a person who arranges a contractor to do work. This does not mean that the PS can ask here for proof of competence - It is for her/him to provide information to allow proof of competence in the tendering process.

15(4) refers to PC the detail here talks of arrangements and information not even specific method statements.

If PSs provided better quality pre-tender plans there would be better quality Construction plans. I am afraid that PSs have become so fixed in their ideas of what makes a construction plan that they are often difficult to change.

Bob

Posted By Ken Taylor
- and what if the initial Construction Phase Plan shows little resemblance to the Pre-Tender Plan and ignores important H&S issues relating to risks to the Client's operations during construction? I expect our PSs to advise us on the adequacy of the PC's Plan for doing the work safely - which must address significant hazards and how they are to be controlled.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
if there is a difference between the pre and construction plans with items ommitted then that may be a cause for concern - but this is not the issue we are talking about. The heart of the problem is that the PS is trying to do things at the site start point which should and will have been dealt with at the pre-tender phase. Much as contractors are decried very few of them in business for long do not have the ability to plan - our problem is people who want it done in their particular way, matching their bible of constructing a plan.

Bob

Posted By Ralph
This has been an interesting discussion and I think has shown just how confusing some aspects of CDM can be ten years on from its introduction.

Just to get back to the original question. I would have thought that site specific assessments could indeed be made weeks ahead of the start of the project. They can, of course, be based on generic ones but should be tailored to the particular circumstances on site and the particular aspects of the design as identified in the pre-tender H&S plan.

Many interesting points have been raised concerning the role of the Planning Supervisor. Robin has, I feel, put the legal position very well whilst. Geoff has contributed from the point of view of someone who carries out the role of Planning Supervisor. Bob seems to be commenting from the Principal Contractors point of view.

Personnally I agree with Oliver’s view:-

“In my opinion having a comprehensive, practical and functional, site specific Construction Phase H&S Plan is as important as ensuring the correct plant and materials have been ordered!”

My own recent experience of a CDM project has been from the standpoint of a health and safety adviser to a client who has commissioned a construction project. I have not been impressed with the way CDM has worked in this case and I can see significant problems with the role of Planning Supervisor. The project involves demolition of part of a structure whilst the remainder was occupied by employees of the client and members of the public. The part being demolished is to be re-built.

The job of Planning Supervisor was contracted out to a quantity surveyor. He clearly saw his role as being to receive and approve the Construction Phase health and safety plan. Both the Planning Supervisor and the site manager for the Principal Contractor were surprised that I should want to see copies of the risk assessments and safety method statements prior to commencement of the work as they both clearly felt that this was the Planning Supervisor’s role. I was even told by the PC that they had no legal duty to pass this information to the client (an interesting interpretation but hardly the spirit of cooperation one might hope for).

In the event the risk assessments and safety method statements were not made available before the start of the construction work. The Planning Supervisor gave permission (in writing) for the work to start anyway thereby putting the client in technical breach of reg 10 (in my opinion anyway).

Part of the work involved asbestos removal and this was subcontracted. I was surprised to see employees of the licensed asbestos removal firm removing asbestos cement cladding by hand with no damping down and no respiratory protective equipment. When I raised this with the PS and the PC I was told that there was no risk and anyone could remove asbestos cement. Clearly there is a risk (even if it is small compared to AIB, sprayed coatings, etc) and HSE’s excellent guidance shows how jobs such as this should be done.

Eventually I received a copy of the asbestos removal firm’s documentation and carried out a detailed evaluation of it against the requirements of reg 6 &7 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regs and associated ACOPS. The documentation was poor, did not meet the requirements set out in the ACOPS and had not correctly assessed the risk of working with the asbestos cement or indeed the other lower risk forms of asbestos containing material on site.

Later I managed to obtain the demolition safety method statement which again was far from clear on how the work would actually be done and which had missed some obvious risks.

Fortunately there have been no significant accidents on this project so far and HSE have not taken an interest. I can not help thinking that this could have been better managed and one of the significant issues is the assumption by almost everyone involved that checking that health and safety on site is properly managed is the responsibility of the PS. If only all Planning Supervisors were as competent in health and safety as they are in quantity surveying (or whatever) then construction might actually become safer and healthier. The PS tells me he is going to attend an asbestos awareness course following my comments.

I realise that this is completely the opposite situation to the one that Geoff seems to encounter where the clients he deals with seem to have little in-house health and safety expertise. It does, however, give another viewpoint on the problems with CDM and the role of Planning Supervisors