Posted By Glyn Atkinson What type of get out clause is being sought here - a declaration on a building drawing - "We certify that all CDM requirements have been looked at and considered -thanks? or - "We comply with all safety legislation relating to the contents of this drawing?" I remember my first HAZOP plant engineering review - twelve meetings, site visits, reams of plant drawings and interlock explanations, brainstorming what if's, as well as the drawings for the new building that was going to house this lot - one simple declaration or note on a drawing? - don't really think so, or am I not reading this request correctly ?? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, just trying to fully understand the request and the thinking behind it.

Posted By Chris Packham Cover all issues in one statement, e.g. potential for accidents, noise, vibration, chemical exposure (respiratory, skin, ingestion), ppe required and method of use, etc.? I would consider any statement that attempted to do this to have perforce to be so superficial as to be a health and safety risk in its own right!

Posted By Tim Corbett I have seen and surgested that notes from Design RA or safety notes go on to a drawing. To my limited understanding its the drawing that will be used out on site by the guys doing the job. It would be interesting to know if anyone of the workforce refers to the H&S plan when on site.

Posted By Ron Hunter I supprt previous statements by TC & BP. It is feasible (& I think preferable) to highlight siginificant design risk issues, instructions, assumptions etc on drawings. Same principle could be applied to existing environment issues. This leaves several issues such as duty holders, contact info, client standards, overlap issues,reference & location of relevant surveys, requirements & arrangements for health & safety file, etc - all these issues are expected (by current majority thinking) to be in a separate pre-tender plan. CDM Regs don't insist on this, the format is not prescribed by law (others would have us think it was).It would be perfectly feasible to include all the above 'text only'information as part of a structured & fully inclusive drawing set.This concept does I think have merit. It would better serve as a focussed approach to identifying and communicating standards and risk issues, moving away from a focus of "producing the plan". So long as the issues in Appendix 3 of the ACoP are satisfied, I can't see a problem.Particularly where the Designer is also the Planning Supervisor, this seems and ideal approach. No doubt this will ruffle some feathers here and there!I think your answer could be "Yes, why not!"