We have been asked to attend a property to complete a site survey and complete a report. The work will require us to drill a hole into the brick mortar to enable an endoscope (?) to be fed into the cavity to identify the potential issue.
Although this is being called a site survey it could be classed as an investigation. My initial thoughts were we don't need a CPP as it is a site survey but then I thought about the hazards of drilling through a wall in a residential property and realised that there should be a method statement in place to ensure that operatives were not exposed to the potential hazards i.e. electrical cables, brick dust etc. which in turn would indicate that a CPP is needed.
What does everyone else think? Am I making this more complicated than I need to?

Latchy have you posted this incorrectly??

Yes.

In my opinion, if you are a single contractor then answer is no.

RAMS of course but not CPP.

However if you are employing a second contractor to drill the hole then a CPP is required.

It is up to you how much time you spnd on the CPP for that small amount of work.

I keep seeing / hearing that for small jobs, maintenance tasks, etc you can use an RA / MS and just call it your CPP.

If you look at the headings required in the CPP, an RA alone would not suffice. Perhaps a document encompassing both would work, but for smaller jobs I still do think CDM 2015 has gone completely of track and has only increased bureaucracy (not to mention that we have bot discussed the pre-construction information requirements on this forum much either!).

I can only see this being resolved in Court when we might then have something to go on. Sorry to rant but I don't think anyone from the powers above tried the guidance out in anger. Its a bit like those eejits who put up road signs or diversion signs as I bet they don't then go back and drive the route to see if they actually direct you to the right place.

Unfortunately, the Temporary & Mobile Constructions Sites Directive does not have a threshold for CPP--hence required for ALL construction work--not fair to blame the drafting of the regulation.

With very minor editing, one can convert a method statement into a CPP for minor works

We have our engineers on one social housing refurb contract use the template (under direction from our client) for every property they enter daily.

The document itself states;

"If the job will last longer than 500 person days or 30 working days (with more than 20 people working at the same time) it will need to be notified to HSE and it is likely to be too complex for this simple plan format."

So is our contract over 500/30 days or not, rendering the CPP template US? We have been working on it for over a year now!