Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By R.KINGSTON
AS A CDM'C FOR A LARGE CONSULTANCY I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OTHER PROFESSIONALS THERE VIEWS ON THE NEW REGS FOR CDM...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
People are overcomplicating some areas and under juicing others.
Eg. The client signature issue has been overly complicated by people insisting regulations mean only a client employee can sign
Questionnaires purporting to determine competency are scattergun and not clear to those responding.
The real meaning of competent is not properly understood and is still thought to refer to training only by many assessors.
My personal views here!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SJA
So Bob, not a lot of change from the 1994 regs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Very welcome indeed, I like the inclusion of welfare to make all projects CDM'able but not necessarily notifiable;CHANGE
Client not being able to transfer legal liabilities to EA or CA; CHANGE
Designer duties; CHANGE
PC; Slight change (going the right way)
Planning Soup to CDM-C Brilliant change and about time too.
Appendix 4&5 Brilliant, nice to see some prescriptions creeping in!
There, that'll do, just some extracted alterations that in my opinion have improved the regulations beyond my original expectations, and made my life so much simpler.
Chazza
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Not from a clients point. I received an F10 to fill in from a client wanting me to be Planning supervisor!!!!!!!!!! yesterday.
I put him right and told him things have moved on a tad. Then he asked me to sign the F10 on their behalf and send it to hse
I don't think so.
I think that contractors attitude toward plant safety is better though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TomP
I think they are beginning to.
If nothing else the clearly defined competency requirements is making companies tighten up their systems. This is the first attempt at adding a commercial dimension to health and saftey cos if you don't comply with core criteria 1, you don't get the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun cooper
With regards the F10 notification changes the 500 MAN DAYS seriously worry all professional demolition diciplines. With today's high reach plant and modern plant attachments and innovation with regards demolition science we argue with the HSE that we could probably do a contract worth in excess of 1 miilion £'s and still not have to notify the HSE.
The HSE have attended seminars organised by the IDE (Institute of Demolition Engineers) and have agreed that the 500 Man Days change could be used by the unscrupulous contractors and clients, but reiterate that the 30 day rule still applies. We would answer that 30 days x 24 hours is a considerable period of time and a serious amount of works can be done without notification.
Some of us prefer that ALL demolition and dismantling works should be notifiable to the HSE even though CDM may not apply. The HSE admit that they do not have the resources to police this if this was to happen, and relay to us that even more of their officers are being transferred or laid off.
I think the demolition notification change will ultimately do us no favours.
My opinion.
Shaun Cooper
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.