Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Note again that threatened infraction proceedings are driving this. Any way the problem is not the regulations it is the people, particularly the HSE ones who have given such poor guidance that schemes like CSCS and the SSIP have become the overgrown beasts that they now are. This leads employers to use the schemes instead of making their ownn competency assessments.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The biggest problem with the CDM Regs are that they are poorly enforced, hence duty holders and particularly clients can ignore the regulations as they choose. Clients are the driver in the construction industry and until they become properly accountable the CDM regs are a waste of time.
I also think that in some areas the regs are too onerous and prescriptive without achieving much for health and safety. For instance, there should be a better definition of construction work per se with regards to notifiable projects. Many projects are not really construction work as we know it. Therefore to comply with the various requirements is OTT and often difficult to implement.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Guys, I'm in agreement, particularly with your comment Ray.
Trying to apply the principles of CDM Notification to some projects is almost impossible and the 'water test' should always be 'what value is added by applying Part 3 of the Regs?' This I am currently experiencing on a Nationwide project that is impossible to manage - applying the principles of Part 3.
Another current project has resulted in my advice to the CDM Client that his appointed PC is not able to produce a sufficiently developed CPP and it is felt that the PC is not therefore competent to act as PC. The Client in this case supported my comments and took on board the advice given following the review.
We had delayed the start date by two weeks to give the PC the opportunity to 'up his management arrangements and game' but ultimately the breakdown in appointing a competent PC in the first place (as required) as opposed to a 'good value for money' contractor who 'should be able to do it' was the nail in the coffin (so to speak). Common in my experience and supports your view on implementation of the Regs.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I'd agree with all that Ray has said, I do find it ironic that as a then Planning Supervisor I went to one of the early HSE seminars where the HSE freely admitted that projects that worked from a safety aspect were normally client led.
Yet on the same hand the HSE seem adverse to ever prosecuting clients for thier breaches.
I went to the consultation sessions for both the 2004 change in ACoP and the CDM 2007 sessions and mentioned major projects that I had been involved with where the HSE knew that the clients were in breach of thier duties, all in I cited 90 projects with 5 household name clients that the HSE refused to act on.
Is it any wonder that CDM is still being seen by many clients as a paperwork exercise?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Reading between the lines, the emphases of this exercise appears to be on the HSE taking “into account the current under implementation of the EU Temporary Mobile Construction Site Directive” and the actual requirements of these regulations.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The link at #1 refers to an under-implementation of the Parent Directive (presumably DIRECTIVE 92/57/EEC). I'm not aware of any area of under-implementation - quite the opposite in fact.
Note that Article 3(3) of the Directive states:
"In the case of constructions sites:
- on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 working days and on which more than 20 workers are occupied simultaneously, or
- on which the volume of work is scheduled to exceed 500 person-days,
the client or the project supervisor shall communicate a prior notice drawn up in accordance with Annex III to the competent authorities before work starts."
A significant "gold plate" by the UK?
Can anyone clarify, and has anyone a note of direction closer to the source?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron
Bang goes the OPs hope of a change in notification requirements then:-)
Again the APS seem to have jumped the HSE announcement to the industry as a whole I think. I hate these bits of information being fed out at meetings only attended by a relatively small group of people. There should have been a public announcement first
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes Bob, even though they sat on it for a week!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Being the cynic that I am and the current government’s obsession with blaming Health & safety culture for all sorts of ails I do hope this is not just going to be an opportunity that the government can`t resist to water down the Regs.
|
|
|
|
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.