Paul, thanks for this heads up. I will pay a visit to the CITB site to-morrow for (hopefully) the guidance docs. PH2

Could you send link please

Says 9 January now...

Sorry, http://www.citb.co.uk/cdmregs, which said 7 January earlier today, now says 9 January.

The comma at the end is "extra"! Try :- http://www.citb.co.uk/cdmregs

What are the odds that nothing will happen 9 January? The HSE/DWP will not publish the draft legislation and the CITB therefore will not issue their guidance document. I think because of the potential politically explosive element of the inclusion of domestic clients Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and a conservative heavy weight is gently siting on it to ensure it is delayed to miss the general election. I know someone who has worked for a mineral department (not the DWP) and they say ministers constantly play a tactical game to survive. Waiting months for sign off was not usually. They did ask if there was any statement regarding the new regulations with Iain Duncan Smith name to it, I know of none. The point they made is without it there is no commitment by the government to get the regulations implemented by April and he will be quite willing hang-out the HSE to dry if it suits his political purposes.

http://www.citb.co.uk/cdmregs has the new guidance docs.

2007 CDM ACOP and Guidence was 64 pages, the 2015 CDM Guidance is now 105 pages!

These are draft documents, will there be any amendments does anyone think?

My copy of 2007 CDM ACoP is 107 pages!

I think we should await the L Series ACoP/Guidance for CDM 2015 and then compare. The guidance for various duty holders on the CITB website is additional and supposed to be clearer.

I shall await for the L-series then.

However, it doesn't help when the very first sentence of the draft client guide sends a very dangerous message. "main set of regulations for managing health.......of construction projects" - note it does say regs, not legislation so I won't quibble about the overarching importance of HSWA. CDM implements Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive. TMCSD is a "daughter directive" to Framework Directive. Framework Directive implemented by Management Regs - so from an overall management point of view which takes precedence MHSWR or CDM? Then from the point of view of the risks, CDM covers many safety risks, but which are more important the health risks or the safety risks? HSE construction stats 2013/14 Fatal - 28 employees, 14 self-employed Specified injuries (formerly major injuries) 1900 employees, 685 s-e O7D injuries 3293 employees, 601 s-e Recognised that non-fatal reportables subject to >50% underreporting, BUT.... Estimates for 2013/14 (annual) ~4500 cases of prescribed diseases ~4600 new cancer registrations ~3700 premature deaths of which ~2500 asbestos, ~600 silica, ~230 diesel exhaust systems I THOUGHT that HSE and the industry wanted greater focus on construction health risks. So what message does this first sentence send?

Yes : http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l153.htm

Well they could, but now all of a sudden they'll be designers and attract more liability than they ever had as CDM-Cs... CDM-Cs have the luxury of being able to tell everyone else how they should be doing their job but not actually attracting any liability if those other parties do what the CDM-C tells them and it goes pear-shaped. Now the PD is a designer, they will presumably attract the same liabilities as any other designer, and if a PD tells a particular designer to do something a particular way, that liability will find its way back to the PD, I think - that instruction is now a design operation. Plus, I think PDs have an absolute duty to ensure the behaviour of all the other designers on the project (even ones they don't have contractual control over). If CDM-Cs want to pick up absolute duties to ensuire teh behaviour of third parties, they're welcome to them.

If it is broken, why not fix it?

As the HSE envisaged the the new regulations would bring financial savings for the client. IE that the "lead designer" would natuarly absorb the duties that were previously undertaken by the CDMC" at no extra (or minimal increase in) cost). After a more thorough read of the guidance over the weekend I cannot see how this will happen. In fact I would envisage a considerable increase in project cost to the Client in meeting the requirements of the new regulations. Not only does the Client now have enhanced duties respect of health and safety and monitoring during the course of a project, but the Principal Designer (whoever that may be) now has an absolute duty (as achrn pointed out) in respect of not only their own but other peoples design works. I cannot envisage any party intending to fulfill the PD role accepting this risk, and undertaking the other PD duties, without a reasonably substantial increase in cost (IE more than the fee of a CDMC).

My understanding is that the Principal Designer cannot like CDM-C be standalone organisations. A Principal Designer must be a Designer and a Designer must prepares or modifies a design or arranges for or instructs any person under their control to do so. They can be project managers, quantity surveys, clients and contractors as well as architects and consultant engineers.

I looked at BIM the other day and could not find anything relating to a hazard/risk register or H&S for that matter. Is it in a COBie database or in the PAS documents somewhere? I am looking to develop a hazard/risk register to help manage some of the duties of the PD and would like it to be BIM compatible.

I have been doing CDM C work for the past four years, working for a Design company who have recently become architects. I have found the role rather easy although the clients involved are fairly small, shopfitting, but hundreds of projects every year and all completed without problems and also without too much effort. Not a high fee charged for any of those projects, but a high number so the income has been good. In my opinion CDM C companies have enjoyed good incomes from Clients because the previous CDM Rags allowed the CDM C to develop their role and charge over the top prices for their work. Tin Hat firmly in place on head now. Now that the CDM C is on the way out, no such title in the new Regs, some people who are CDM Cs and nothing else are looking to "invent" another role within the Regs in an effort to "assist" the Principal Designer with his duties. Having read the draft I cannot see any difficulty for the PD at all if he simply follows the guidelines and there is no need for the current CDM C role to continue. Some of the work will be carried out at meetings with Client and/or Principal Contractor - meetings that already happen, but in future there will be one less person involved and the same work will get done. Having said that I can forsee PDs having to employ some assistance for the admin side of the work but not at the high cost as previously. There should be a cost saving for the Client at the end of the project as, the way I see it, the cost will be reduced because no CDM C to employ. The above is all my opinion and I will keep the tin hat on for a while lomger.