Apologies if this has been asked already. I am trying to clarify the requirement under CDM 2015 re the Notification in respect of domestic clients. Can somebody provide the simple answer lease? Many thanks.

Thank you Alfasev

Why refer to the guidance? The regs are quite clear: 6(2) Where a project is notifiable, the client must give notice in writing to the Executive as soon as is practicable before the construction phase begins. 7(1) here the client is a domestic client the duties in regulations 4(1) to (7) and 6 must be carried out by— (a) the contractor for a project where there is only one contractor; (b) the principal contractor for a project where there is more than one contractor; or (c) the principal designer where there is a written agreement that the principal designer will fulfil those duties.

Please consider this scenario. A domestic client is having a conservatory built attached to his house, commencing 20th April 2015. Duration 4 weeks. Architect has drawn up the plans. There will be the conservatory company on site and a contractor has been appointed to oversee the works, and carry out everything the conservatory company don’t do. IMO: The contractor will become PC and take the client’s duties, A CPP is required, A H&S File is required, A PD is required and this can be the Architect who drew the plans, The project is not notifiable (not >30 days and not >20 workers on site simultaneously), The above would apply in accordance with CDM 2005 however as the work has already started, i.e. plans drawn and contractors appointed, this can be CDM 2007. Am I right but will Pre Construction Information be required?

Thanks Alf, are you saying it will be or just asking the same question?

I've been reading through some of the HSE information on the new regs and they mention in one place that they will provide a simple template for a Construction Phase Plan for simple projects. I've had a good look around the HSE site but cant't see it. Has anyone found it yet? Regarding notification etc. I think that's clear that the project must be thirty days and twenty workers simultaneously. However the criteria set for appointment of a Principal designer and Principal contractor is any project where there is more than one contractor.

Excellent result, thanks Moss18458, I've just downloaded it to my phone and will do the same to the tablet later. Here's a link to the download pages Android - https://play.google.com/...b.cdmwizard&hl=en_GB Apple - https://itunes.apple.com...?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 Sorry, don't know how to make them active links on here but I guess you can copy and paste.

Downloaded onto my iPad and see it seems to do the trick. Thanks for the link Citizen.

Quite agree to a point bob but these are aimed at small builders that may not have really been involved with CDM before (even if they should have been). They give people a starting point and something to build on. Smartphones and tablets are becoming an integrated part of life these days and we do so much on them but I guess if you don't have one you won't have the App to start with so it's not a problem. Personally I think that anything that helps small companies manage health and safety and keep their people safe is a good thing.

This thread is synonymous with what's wrong with CDM 2015 - lots of fairly useless documents floating about in the guise of managing safety. CDM 2007 was never properly enforced and many clients, PCs, designers ignored the regulations. There is little hope that those working on domestic projects will be any better, indeed many working on commercial projects will by-pass the regulations when it suits. Is this supposed to be progress?

Are you asking is it fair that the domestic client has to pay for something that a European Directive says all clients have to pay for? Or are you asking is it fair that the client pays for adequate planning and management that works be carried out safely? The first is a case of that depends whether you think directives are a price worth paying for the benefits of the EC. The real problem here, I think, is an absence of visibility in what the directives require - for the last 20 years or so society in the UK has been blindly oblivious of the fact that the EC is passing laws that do actually have an impact. However, having passed those laws, yes I think it is fair that people comply with the laws that have been passed, even when it costs money. For example, I think it's fair that car-owners have to pay for new tyres when their tyres wear down to a level deemed by law to be unacceptable. The second case is more straightforward. Yes, I think that construction project clients should provide adequate resources (including money) to enable construction projects to be completed reasonably safely. This includes the resources to provide suitable planning and management. I don't quite understand the basis of any argument that it's more OK to risk killing builders who are working for a domestic client than for a commercial client.

If I have read your question correctly, the 'extra' cost should be negligible for small domestic projects. For instance, it should have been foreseen that there would be more than contractor from the inception of the project, hence the main contractor would become the PC and the architect would become the PD. Whether these architects and 'Bob the builders' are aware of the changes to CDM 2015 is another matter. The domestic client will not be aware for sure. This is the problem with where we are at this point and it depends to what extent the HSE will enforce the new regulations for the future.

Yes, but look at all the millions that the construction industry will save by not having to fork out for CDMCs anymore.

The domestic client will not be aware of the provision to appoint a PD. Therefore by default Reg 7.-(2) will apply - PD and...PC.

And compile the PCI?

Im my opinion the Citb App is largely a glorified basic set of risk control measures. Its content, whilst assisting very small contractors to be seen to be moving towards compliance, is not sufficient in my opinion as a compliant Construction Phase Plan. The HSE L153 guidance (still at draft stage) expects specific items to be addressed, these are, with comments about the CITB CPP are; A description of the project such as key dates and details of key members of the project team -addressed adequately through the initial data gathering The health and safety aims for the project - no mention of the aims. The site rules - no mention of site rules. Arrangements to ensure cooperation between project team members and coordination of their work e.g. regular site meetings - no mention of arrangements between the project team or coordination etc. Arrangements for involving workers - no mention of arrangements for involving workers. Site induction - no mention of induction. Welfare facilities - asks about the location of welfare facilities and does prompt about hot water etc. Fire and emergency procedures - no mention of fire and emergency arrangements The control of any of the specific site risks listed in Schedule 3 where they are relevant to the work involved – does drag out specific risks based on the activities. One item the L153 rages about is avoiding RAMS etc in the CPP, yet that is exactly what the App has produced. Then there is the large list of caveats and exclusions at the bottom of it. It certainly looks good, but I feel it does not go much way to being a CPP as required by CDM2015.

With all due respect to all parties; We are required to adequately manage irrespective of what we are doing e.g. construction, washing up in a kitchen or managing a bus via common law, HSWA, MHSW, COSHH etc.etc.etc. so why all the fuss over CDM in particular! And anybody who has not already got in place a management plan [CPP in construction] via MHSW at least for doing what they do is leaving themselves wide open in my view as it is without any new CDM areas so I advise all parties to have in place suitable and sufficient management plans irrespective Very small builders have very good tax, national insurance, accountancy and similar business related plans in place no matter how small their business is so why are they special with regards to H&S? Or are they special because they know that there is not much chance of the HSE turning up in anyway unless there is a death so they take the risk anyway *My last 4 bad accidents are good examples of where the enforcers did not do anything regards all

I agree. The smaller end of the construction industry already sees many H&S requirements as overly bureaucratic, burdensome and a drain on profits. The requirements of CDM 2015 will only serve to re-enforce this opinion. From an H&S image perspective this is going to do more harm than good when your trying to engage with people and get them to take H&S seriously.