I would break things down into different areas and tackle things from there A: Design areas under CDM where the designers are designing specificially for the structure etc of the finished article and nothing else B: Design under 'other areas' connected with the creation of the building as againt the finished artical noting that a designer designing a building may have nothing to do with nor contribute towards the design of a schaffold that is needed to make that building And irrespective of any specifics re design under CDM where a person alters, removes etc. something then they take full responsibility for their actions some of which can be design responsibilities especially so if this is a 'specificially' designed / structural scaffold The main problems are that scaffolds are not ususlly designed nor resoursed to account for the range of activities undertaken upon then as if they were on many many occasions the scaffold would need to be changed on a daily basis or even more frequant basis so compromises are made noting that the cost of continually having a scaffolder present to alter the scaffold is not liked Perhaps you can look at it from another angle e.g. if the scaffold must be 'rearanged' to allow an activity to proceed then as long as a competent person undertakes the alteration and the integrety of the scaffoold is safe and the staff using it are safe whilst working after the re-arangement then, with what ever new controls you put in place, the risks should be low and go from there. In all cases I would note to the manager that they have the duties / liabilities -This is just a suggestion

I think we are being distracted from the real issue, with the site manager instructing the scaffolder to remove the handrail, has he left a gap where someone could fall?? if this is the case, stop any work in this area until operatives are in a position where they cant fall. Whether it falls under CDM is irrelevent at this time. That can be addressed later with an investigation as to why the site manager felt the need to remove the handrail. maybe there is no gap between the structures, and no fall from height by leaving the guard rail off. There is many tangients that we can go off in here, but without the full facts thats excactly what it is. In my opinion!!

Well Ladies and gents, sorry for my delay, but very valid points, though I wouldn't be in a rush to quote BS 5973 as it was superceeded many years ago now by BS En 12811-1 for tube and fittings and 12810-1 for prefab' components ( otherwise known as system). That aside, as rightly pointed out he instructed an alternate design that did, yes, expose brick layers to a fall where his only measure was to install fall protection in the form of bags (which were never actually installed) which doesn't satisfy the principals of prevention highlighted in the site or company H&S policy. I have received notice that on reviewing my investigation report, which mentioned other non-conformances, the said manager has received disciplinary actions after the company H&S manager attended site and found all my observation to be correct and still outstanding. No winners, but a little justice and hopefully lessons learned before harm actually occurs. Thanks for all the help - oh and I did eventually find the paragraphs within L144 before I sent the report off. but again, many thanks

Apologies for the oversight achrn, but that would have little bearing in this instance as true as you statement is. The fact most NHBC (if not all) site mgt undertake scaffold appreciation or inspection courses ensure they're aware that tg20:08 ( which will be replaced by tg20:13 in march) is the translation of bs en 12811-1 and clearly states all scaffolds are designed, simply that nqv level 2 scaffolds ( basic) follow a generic design variation. That is the single biggest reason BS 5973 was repealed as far as I am aware.