Rank: Forum user
|
Do people think that the role of the CDMC will change or become obsolete when the review is published circa 2014 opinions please.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hope it does and we will see the end of CDMCs claiming to be the arbiters of construction safety. That said they do play a useful role independent of the designer, challenging the cosy concerns of many designers. The imprecision re H&S management of the project has created most issues however.
I would like any new acop to look at the whole matter of competency assessment from a fresh perspective as the current information relies heavily on questionnaires, even though this is not explicitly stated. We need guidance that helps companies and individuals demonstrate their competence and competence management. It should also help clients to understand what they need to look for without reliance on questions as the prime choice.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Like Bob, I would like to see a change in the CDM-C's role. Whilst it does depend on the circumstances of the project with influences from clients and other individuals, for the CDM-C to be fully effective they need to be more impartial and independent. However, the role of the CDM-C would not be so problematic if the CDM Regs were properly enforced - which they are not.
Although the 2007 CDM regs were designed to ensure that clients are more accountable I'm not sure this is always healthy or even necessary. Too many, mostly corporate clients, have a beguiling influence on the project and the PC does not want to bite the hand which feeds them. Hence some clients get away with murder.
The PC should be allowed to manage the project and health and safety without undue interference from the client. The role of the CDM-C should be to advise the client of their responsibilities, assist the PC in delivering theirs, ensure the timely provision of information and to arbitrate where necessary. In theory, there should not be a conflict if the aforementioned duties were to be applied and ENFORCED by the regulator. Therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a consultant I occasionally answer a builder's plea for help with H&S on his smallish (but notifiable) building site, and I try my best to take on the dual role of CDM-C and safety consultant.
It's never easy because a small site client who also must become the PC on site has difficulty grasping the needs of CDM and how the roles are to be defined.
Explaining CDM to a barely competent client often results in blank looks, and they will often soon start ignoring my advice on scaffolding issues and other Work at Height issues.
An example. The client decides he wants to do the scaffold inspections to save money. It soon becomes clear to me that he is not competent to continue doing these inspections because he ignores the absence of edge protection either in the scaffolding or in half-built floor areas.
So I tell him we need to appoint a better inspector, and he is offended by that, indeed angry. I say we should also not rely on the scaffold contractor, and we need also to assess also how safely brickies are working on the scaffold, so I say that I have enough knowledge and experience with smallish sites that I can do the written scaffold inspection reports for him. He doesn't want to pay me 2hrs a week to do the inspections .....
How do I enforce CDM in these situations?
Sometimes I just walk away, go on line, and take my name off the F10.
JohnW
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We've discussed this on a few threads now. UK must implement the Directive 92/57/EEC - this it has done via CDM. Government of the day would seem to favour adoption of all Directives without change (i.e. avoiding what is perceived as "gold plating". If the Directive is enacted into UK law verbatim, then it makes sense to throw away the CDM ACoP and adopt the corresponding non-binding guide to good practice. Some significant reading there - all 192 pages of it. We arrive back at the argument of application to domestic (i.e. joe public) clients.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Because of the wider scope of stakeholders driving these changes on this occasion, I am taking somewhat of a pragmatic view on their impact construction safety management, however these are my thoughts.
Co-ordinator obsolete? No, because the role of ‘The coordinator(s) for safety and health matters during the project preparation stage’, is enshrined in the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive, however we may see the CDM-C title taken away.
Change? Yes, because the new regulations are likely to be an almost direct “copy out” of the TMCS Directive.
Who will undertake ‘The coordinator(s) for safety and health matters during the project preparation stage’? Back in August the HSE appeared to promoting the concept of the lead designer undertaking this role; however the APS are also seeking a wider role for the CDM-C.
Domestic Clients? Interesting one, I think politically the HSE will simply identify the Lead Designer undertaking the coordinator’s role, unless the Client specifies otherwise.
ACOP? I suspect that this will not happen as there will be a dash to get these Regulations published due to pressure from the EU, drive to reduce red tape and a certain political event in 2015. There may be a simple guidance document published.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The Irish Government implemented the EU Temporary and Mobile Sites directive and ended up with their own version of CDM Regulations: not all that different to the UK's. They too are now consulting with a view to changing them. To give you an idea of their thinking (including Domestic Clients for the first time) here is a link to their official website. http://consultation.hsa....structionRegulation2013/PH2
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would hope that common sense will prevail in the Irish consultation just as it has (so far) in the UK. Application of CDM to private domestic homeowners is disproportionate and burdensome. HSC were quite open about this when CDM was drafted (as they were with rejecting the "two contractors or more" notification threshold), and I would hope that the UK (and Ireland) would continue to constructively challenge the EU on those aspects.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, I am somewhat ambivalent about domestic and commercial construction activities being totally separate. Many of those working in construction related activities hide behind the domestic veil, when in fact it is a commercial activity, such as designers, project management companies, agents, etc. We do in effect have two standards which are applied and I don't see why employers on domestic work should be exempt from all CDM regs.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, I am somewhat ambivalent about domestic and commercial construction activities being totally separate. Many of those working in construction related activities hide behind the domestic veil, when in fact it is a commercial activity, such as designers, project management companies, agents, etc. We do in effect have two standards which are applied and I don't see why employers on domestic work should be exempt from all CDM regs.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:Ron, I am somewhat ambivalent about domestic and commercial construction activities being totally separate. Many of those working in construction related activities hide behind the domestic veil, when in fact it is a commercial activity, such as designers, project management companies, agents, etc. We do in effect have two standards which are applied and I don't see why employers on domestic work should be exempt from all CDM regs.
Ray Arguably under the current arrangements CDM still applies to domestic projects. The only difference is that project is not notified and there is no formal CDM-C, however if we strictly apply the criteria under the TMCS Directive, the project will only need to be notified if it is longer than 30 working days with over 20 workers working simultaneously or 500 more than person-day which will rule out most domestic projects!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray et al, please understand that I refer to the (IMHO) disproportionate approach of bringing householders into the ambit of health and safety law and placing particularly onerous responsibilities on them as a CDM "Client". Full implementation of the Directive would bring every improvement project involving 2 or more contractors within the full impact of CDM/TMS - surely a crazy situation. See also para 7.12 of: http://regulations.compl...%20THE%20CONSTRUCTION%20(DESIGN%20AND%20MANAGEMENT)%20REGULATIONS.pdf To be clear - H&S law and CDM duties apply to designers and contractors irrespective of the nature of the client or location of the construction project.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The reason why we are apparently going to extend client duties to domestic clients is the outcome of http://eur-lex.europa.eu...ELEX:62009CJ0224:EN:HTMLSo rather than going back to the EC and negotiating amendment to TMCSD to enable member states to allow derogations from Article 3.1 as well as 3.2 we're just going down the route of extending the scope of CDM whilst intending to "copy out" the Directive (which translates as legislation which UK plc will probably have difficulty in understanding)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm reading that judgement as by an Italian Tribunal Peter. I think it proper that Member States continue to challenge this application to domestic clients.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We quickly got on to domestic vs commercial sites, but if I can just refer/remind back to my posting #4, the problems I have, doing pre-cons and CPP's and 'enforcing' CDM, are not with 'domestic' clients, it's with Joe the Builder who buys a plot of land and builds two or three dwellings on it. These projects usually take 9 months and usually his sub-contractors think CDM is a Cadbury's Dairy Milk! :o) actually that quickly becomes :o(
One thing I have done a couple of times, when I can see the client is going to be too difficult to work with (i.e. be his CDM-C and/or consultant) is I've said to him I'll only work with him if he will attend/sit the CITB supervisor's course. Still waiting on anyone to do that, cost is about 300 quid, and there's an exam.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnW wrote:We quickly got on to domestic vs commercial sites, but if I can just refer/remind back to my posting #4, the problems I have, doing pre-cons and CPP's and 'enforcing' CDM, are not with 'domestic' clients, it's with Joe the Builder who buys a plot of land and builds two or three dwellings on it. These projects usually take 9 months and usually his sub-contractors think CDM is a Cadbury's Dairy Milk! :o) actually that quickly becomes :o(
One thing I have done a couple of times, when I can see the client is going to be too difficult to work with (i.e. be his CDM-C and/or consultant) is I've said to him I'll only work with him if he will attend/sit the CITB supervisor's course. Still waiting on anyone to do that, cost is about 300 quid, and there's an exam. John, Horse and water quickly come to mind in your situation. Unfortunately construction is an industry of two halves (arguably with the diverse safety standards we have it is two industries). If anyone told me that they did not know what the Construction, Design and Management Regulations were, that would indicate that they had never worked for a large contractor, they had not worked very long in the industry, never obtained a CSCS card or they simply did not want to know! I have been in that situation before, and I quickly assess the situation by asking the question, ‘is it worth putting our PI insurance at risk’, if it is not, then I would simply walk away from the project. When domestic client’s projects become notifiable, I can see the situation where the level of co-ordinator fees offered are never going to be proportionate to the actual risk.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Must be a challenging dilemma for consultants out there in the commercial world, dealing with small 'developers' who are both the Client and the Principal Contractor. I can imagine the stunned looks when you advise this Client that the (one and the same) Principal Contractor's CPP isn't sufficently developed to allow the Construction Phase to commence!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, exactly, and of course any suggestion that the project should not start is often ignored. While I'm still waiting for copies of contractors' skills certs or liability insurance certs the diggers might have already moved in ...... I do, though, feel like I'm 'working in the community', all my customers are within 15 mile radius, I genuinely want to help them work/build safely. I try and keep my own backside covered with timely advice/warnings appropriately dated etc. But if the CDM-C has to ensure arrangements are in place for ..... and because of an evasive or clueless client/PC I haven't been able to ensure ..... then is it time to walk away. Sometimes I wonder can I walk away having not ..... ? ron hunter wrote:Must be a challenging dilemma for consultants out there in the commercial world, dealing with small 'developers' who are both the Client and the Principal Contractor. I can imagine the stunned looks when you advise this Client that the (one and the same) Principal Contractor's CPP isn't sufficently developed to allow the Construction Phase to commence!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course John, and in the context of CDM Regs 20 & 21, very little of the CDM-C duties are expressed in absolute terms. There isn't much in there for the HSE to build a case on, with the possible exception of 20(2)(a). In a small scale development, even that is I think limited. Similarly, you could advise at the very start of the new-build Project that the H&S File will comprise a set of as-built drawings -end of. I don't think you are at great risk (other than contractually) when you need to walk away......?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Of course John, and in the context of CDM Regs 20 & 21, very little of the CDM-C duties are expressed in absolute terms. There isn't much in there for the HSE to build a case on, with the possible exception of 20(2)(a). In a small scale development, even that is I think limited. Similarly, you could advise at the very start of the new-build Project that the H&S File will comprise a set of as-built drawings -end of. I don't think you are at great risk (other than contractually) when you need to walk away......? The project I walked away from also included an asbestos survey which I had significant doubts about!
|
|
|
|
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.