Hmm, I can't agree with everything you have written but interesting nonetheless. I would also add that the role of PD is somewhat nebulous in that it could be an organisation or individual, it is my understanding that a PD does not have to be a designer per se. A PD could be a project management company, a principal contractor, project manager, etc. The role of the PD must surely be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the work. Unfortunately CDM 2015 does not make any distinction between minor and major projects, except where the project has a stand alone duty to notify. Where it is a minor project with the only design input say for example, a tube scaffold, the PC could be the PD, otherwise the duty falls to the client - which would be a nonsense. Of course, where the design input is in-house within client's organisation, then the client becomes the PD.

This is worrying and although I have not come across this there is a lot of ex CDM-Cs offering their services as CDM consultants. However I am finding that a number of these CDM consultants do not understand that the CDM 2015 represents a game changer. They have failed to fully understand that the PD role is to control preconstruction hazards and risks which includes those associated with the design. I do sympathies with some ex CDM-Cs as they do understand the changes but have been left high and dry.

I believe this statement is just wrong. The PD must absolutely be a designer. They don't need to be an organisation that customarily describes itself as designers, but they must be a designer as defined by the regs. However, there are few organisations involved in construction that don't make any design decisions. Labour-only subbies are probably all. I also observe that while the PD must be a designer, the regs do not require that they are a designer on the project in question. Thus, there's nothing necessarily illegal about the statement "Ideally the CDM Coordinator (Principal Designer) should not be a division of the architect, the structural engineer, the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer or the quantity surveyor." The PD does not need to be the structural designer (for example) appointed to design the project in question. That's not to say the statement is true. Personally, I believe that it is better if the PD is one of the parties with other involvement in the project - it is preferred if the PD is not a bolt-on adjunct with no other purpose. Thus, if you are architects, project managers and QS, you are a designer, and the regs would permit you to be PD, whether or not you've got anything else to do with the project in question.

This statement is wrong, adding to what RayRapp has posted reg 5.1(a) state the client must appoint “a designer with control over the pre-construction phase of the project”. Therefore to be the PD you must not only have something to do with the project you must be a designer as defined in reg 2 and be in a position of influence.

In my opinion, the regulations definition for a designer have deliberately been left pretty loose by the HSE. This is has been done to easily enable the prosecution of those who inadvertently become a designer, without the correct levels of skill and experience and knowledge. To argue that because the guidance mentions that a QS can be designer means that a QS can adequately discharge the role of PD is again, in my opinion, flawed. It is key to the success of a project that the Principal Designer meets two essential criteria: 1. They have the correct skills, experience and knowledge to fulfil this role (either as an individual or as an organisation). In my opinion this must include design qualifications under many situations, especially when managing the principles of prevention applied to structural engineers, architects and M&E designers. 2. They are integrated into the project team and have control and influence over the design and preconstruction phase. If the Principal Designer does not fulfil these two criteria then I do not believe they can fulfil their duties as set out in the regs. I share Clark34522’s concern over how CDM2015 has been interpreted by many large consultant firms, who at first glance appear to be advising clients that there is no change from CDM2007 and CDMC equates to PD. This is particularly worrying when this model is applied to D&B contract. I wonder what Andrew Lees thinks of this. Ultimately there will be no absolute answer to this speculation on who can is right or wrong until the HSE begins (if it ever does) to prosecute Clients and Principal Designers. On the subject of the CDM2015 cost benefit analysis there shall be no cost saving to the client as long as they continue to pay for assurance consultants to duplicate duties undertaken by legal duty holders. It is a question of trust and if the client requires to be assured of this trust they shall continue to pay 3rd party consultants…but this costs money on top of paying the duty holders. This leads to a cost increase not a cost saving.

I am at a loss as to what point you are trying to make with your first paragraph. Your interpretation of the regulations is not, in my experience, how the vast majority of the industry has interpreted them. I have been to seminars hosted by the HSE, IOSH, APS and a leading law firm that has confirmed my interpretation on this issue. How can a PD control the pre-construction phase if they are not involved in the project? You need to read regulation 2. “principal designer” means the designer appointed under regulation 5(1)(a) to perform the specified duties in regulations 11 and 12; “designer” means any person (including a client, contractor or other person referred to in these Regulations) who in the course or furtherance of a business—(a) prepares or modifies a design; or (b) arranges for, or instructs, any person under their control to do so, relating to a structure, or to a product or mechanical or electrical system intended for a particular structure, and a person. You have accepted the PD must be a designer but not on the project in question. But the above definition of a designer must be read in conjunction with their duties. Therefore what does regulation 9.(1) mean “A designer must not commence work in relation to a project unless satisfied that the client is aware of the duties owed by the client under these Regulations.” The wording in the CITB guidance was changed to reflect the regulations but it does not mean the PD can be a designer but not on the project in question. Regulation 2 defines a lot of the roles and terms used in the regulations. They all are associated with a construction project but none refer to the project in question. It is common-sense that they all refer to a single project, the project in question. Therefore because there is nothing referencing the PC to the project in question it would be ludicrous to assume otherwise. The same applies to the PD role

If a designer is not working on the project in question what are they doing, making the tea!

Ron, I was not referring to an individual as a PD but an organisation.

Achrn, Ron may have identified that we may be at cross purposes. Are you talking about a designer as an individual or as an organisation? If an individual is not involved in the design of a project but is acting as PD within a design practice that is involved in the design that’s fine. If not good luck with your interpretation and we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you are confident in your interpretation so be it, time will tell.

No, I'm talking about the PD, however appointed under the contract. It doesn't matter whether that's a person or an organisation - there's no need for a person appointed as a named individual PD to be designing any aspect of the project in question and there's no need for an organisation appointed as a PD to be designing any aspect of the project in question. The regs and the official guidance simply doesn't require that. No-where do they say the PD must be designing part of the project in question. Nowhere does it say the PD must also have another role on the project. They just don't say this things. If it was required or intended it would be trivially easy to include it explicitly in the wording, so the only rational interpretation is that it is not required. This interpretation is strongly reinforced by the fact that draft guidance (which did originally say that) was changed so it no longer said that. Why did they take it out of the guidance if it is a requirement? If the intention is that PD be a designer working on the project, why don't the regs say that- "Where there is more than one contractor the client must appoint in writing one of the designers on the project as principal designer" would have been easy. There are thousands and thousands of construction projects in the UK my employer is not working on, too.

Whilst I understand what your getting at I must agree with archn for the following reasons. As a Client if you where forced to appoint a PD from your existing design team (especially at early project stage) there is a chance of the following. No-one in the existing design team wants to take on the role. That they are unable to suitably fulfill the role as they don`t have the required competencies. They don`t have or cannot get PI cover to undertake the role. The client would therefore be scuppered. If an external PD is appointed then the question as to whether he could go through the project without making some form of a decision that then placed him in the cdm definition of a designer is another question. Personally I doubt it.

If I've understood what you are getting at, that's a silly argument. There's no law that says you are allowed to eat green jelly. UK law works on the principle that if the law does not prohibit something and does not require something conflicting, then it is legal. If you agree that there's nothing outlawing the PD not being a designer on the project in question, then you're agreeing that the PD legally need not be a designer on the project in question. There doesn't need to be a regulation saying "the PD need not be a designer on the project in question" for it to be legal. Eh? If you aren't designing on this project, you don't have design duties on this project. Regulation 9 simply doesn't say the PD must prepare or modify this design, it sets out what someone who is preparing or modifying a design must do. If you haven't prepared or modified any part of this design, you don't need to demonstrate that you applied the principles of prevention while preparing or modifying the design, because you didn't prepare or modify the design. If the regs say that the PD must be a designer on the project for which they act as PD, why not find and quote the bit that says that? It's because neither the regs nor the HSE published or endorsed guidance actually say that. The regs say the PD must be a designer. The regs do not say the PD must be a designer of any part of the project on which they are PD. The implications of Paulw71's point is much more interesting, however. A CDM-C could claim that they weren't a designer and weren't liable for the design - I've had CDM-Cs say that, even as they made demands that affect and modify the design. Under the new regs, it is clear (I think) that the person doing the CDM administrative role (now PD) is actually a designer, and therefore if (or, as Paul highlights, more likely 'when') they make a decision that affects the design, they need to accept the full design liabilities of that decision. It's simply untenable, I think, that someone fulfilling the role 'principal designer' would get away with claiming they are not doing design when they require changes to the design. (Personally, I was always convinced that a CDM-C saying 'you mustn't do that' or 'you must do this' was making themselves a designer, but they've more than once told me they aren't - they are merely 'advising'.)

Looking for safety training courses

One significant flaw in these regulations is the the Client can appoint a Principal Designer, but there is no statutory requirement for any designer on the project to undertake this role!

I am completely lost in this discussion. 'The PD needs to be a designer'...I don't agree they need to be a designer per se as per my previous post. For example, a 'designer' could be someone who specifies what materials and quantities to use, does this now them make them a designer as we know it - I don't think so. However they could and would be the PD in order to comply with regulations (where there is more than one contractor). The client appoints the designer, why would they appoint someone not working on the project? Even if it's not fobidden within the regulations is this keeping within the spirit of the regulations - I don't believe so.

I cannot speak for other CDM-C's but I have plenty of self awareness. I have always found that I do not need expertise in M&E to question the placing of plant on a flat roof rather than on the ground. If I don't know enough about a subject I get help from someone that does. When CDM was first introduced, it was assumed that designers would take on the role of the planning supervisor. This did not happen and it may not again in this the 3rd attempt to get the regulations to work and comply with Europe. My practice is refusing to accept the role of PD unless our own architects are appointed; we would then support our own guys and work in full compliance with the regs. At least I may sleep a bit better.

I didn't invent it and I so wish it was obvious to all!

Although it's resurrecting an old thread, I note the HSE has now said something about this - a Construction Infonet email I've received has as a 'frequently asked question' "Does CDM 2015 require the principal designer to be a member of the project design team?" ... and the answer from HSE is no: "A. No. The PD must be appointed by the client as soon as it is established that more than one contractor is or is likely to be working on the project to plan, manage, monitor and control the design stages. "If the client gets it right and appoints the PD early at the concept stage, then the appointment should commonly take place before the project design team has been fully identified or assembled. The PD may provide their own design team, appoint a team or manage and control any team appointed by others. "Whatever the model, which provides maximum flexibility for the client, - the PD must be able to prove to the client that they have the SKE or organisational capability to fulfil all the functions - proportionate to the nature, size, complexity and risk profile of the project. Once in place, the PD should be in control of the design team so that they, and the design team, can carry out their roles effectively. " So I remain of the view, and read this response from HSE as confirming the view, that the PD needs to be a designer, but need not be a designer who has design responsibility for any part of the particular project for which they are PD.

CONSTRUCTION INFONET - JULY 2015: Safety Alert - Extendable scaffolding loading bay gate, CDM 2015 - PD appointment, prosecutions, publications and events HSE eBulletin service sent this bulletin at 27-07-2015 04:16 PM BST http://content.govdelive.../UKHSE/bulletins/111707d HSE has received many enquires on CDM 2015 and we will be updating our webpages with further information in due course. In the meantime, here are a couple of answers to some frequently asked questions about the role of the principal designer (PD). Q1. Who can carry out the role of the principal designer (PD)? A. The PD must be a designer - an architect, consulting engineer or quantity surveyor, or anyone who specifies and alters designs as part of their work. They can also be clients, contractors and tradespeople if they carry out design work or arrange for or instruct persons under their control to do so. They must have the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience (SKE) or organisational capability to carry out all the functions and responsibilities assigned to them in Regulations 11 and 12 and have control over the pre-construction phase. Commonly, the PD is likely to be: - for larger projects - a design practice or a technical department of a principal contractor e.g. a principal contractor doing design and build; - for smaller projects - a self-employed architect/technician, small design practice, a project management company, a client’s internal estates management team, or even a specialist tradesperson such as an electrician where they lead on the design function; so long as they meet the criteria of; i. being a designer; ii. having the relevant SKE or organisational capability, and; iii. being in control of the pre-construction phase. Q2. Does CDM 2015 require the principal designer to be a member of the project design team? A. No. The PD must be appointed by the client as soon as it is established that more than one contractor is or is likely to be working on the project to plan, manage, monitor and control the design stages. If the client gets it right and appoints the PD early at the concept stage, then the appointment should commonly take place before the project design team has been fully identified or assembled. The PD may provide their own design team, appoint a team or manage and control any team appointed by others. Whatever the model, which provides maximum flexibility for the client, - the PD must be able to prove to the client that they have the SKE or organisational capability to fulfil all the functions - proportionate to the nature, size, complexity and risk profile of the project. Once in place, the PD should be in control of the design team so that they, and the design team, can carry out their roles effectively. Q3. Can a client carry out the role of the principal designer? A. Yes. If a client fails to, or decides not to appoint a PD the law provides that the PD role is automatically assigned to the client. Many clients will choose to take on the PD role themselves but irrespective of whether by choice or otherwise, the client must have the SKE or organisational capability to fulfil all the PD functions and responsibilities effectively.

As Alfasev alludes, I think the good old HSE are making things up as they go along and making a bit of a hash of it, if I say so myself. Whilst doing a bit of Googling I came across an interesting article I think is worth a read - it sums up the position of the PD very nicely. http://www.wragge-law.co...-want-to-phone-a-friend/