Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Eddie1  
#1 Posted : 12 January 2015 08:12:02(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie1

Interesting article on the CDM2015 regulations which very much reflect the consultation responses. I have to say I completely agree with the article. The HSE and politicians must be squirming....good!

http://constructionnatio...se-you-cannot-be-serious
jay  
#2 Posted : 12 January 2015 09:45:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

It depends as I cannot find who owns the "Construction National" and what are its interests.
RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 12 January 2015 10:58:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Whatever the case, it is a well written and researched article. Although I don't agree with everything it states, I do support the overall intention of the article.
Steve SJP RM  
#4 Posted : 12 January 2015 11:15:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steve SJP RM

RayRapp wrote:
Whatever the case, it is a well written and researched article. Although I don't agree with everything it states, I do support the overall intention of the article.


I will 2nd that comment!!!
achrn  
#5 Posted : 12 January 2015 11:55:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

I disagree.

It skates over the fact that CDM07 does not properly implement the TMCSD (mentioning in passing only one of the ways it fails to do so), and instead asserts that the revision of CDM is down to the red tape challenge.

There are various cases of 'proof by assertion' - for example, it says that last longer than 30 working days and have more than 20 workers working simultaneously at any point is completely illogical, but the current requirement of 30 working days or 500 person days is more logical. That's nonsense - it's no more or less logical. It's an arbitrary limit.

It's internally inconsistent. At the start of the article "The CDM Regulations 2007 are powerful and workable and substantially protect the health and safety of all who work in the construction industry". However, when you get halfway down, of the new regs it says "there are no specific and expressly defined responsibilities for the domestic client similar to those of the commercial client". But that's the same as the current regs, and the article says the current regs are powerful and workable and substantially protect the health and safety of all who work in the construction industry, so that's fine, surely.

The article conflates CDM applying to a project and the project being notifiable. I'm not sure if the author doesn't understand the difference, or is deliberately confusing them to try and make a point.

The second half is one long eulogy to CDM-C's, out of whose orifices it is apparent that the sun shines. Only CDM-Cs are capable of saving the world and all designers are stupid. I do wonder why, if CDM-Cs are so great, they needed to be legislated into existence. If you believe this article every project will want at least two or three, whether the law requires them or not...

RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 12 January 2015 13:11:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

achrn wrote:
I disagree.

It skates over the fact that CDM07 does not properly implement the TMCSD (mentioning in passing only one of the ways it fails to do so), and instead asserts that the revision of CDM is down to the red tape challenge.

There are various cases of 'proof by assertion' - for example, it says that last longer than 30 working days and have more than 20 workers working simultaneously at any point is completely illogical, but the current requirement of 30 working days or 500 person days is more logical. That's nonsense - it's no more or less logical. It's an arbitrary limit.

It's internally inconsistent. At the start of the article "The CDM Regulations 2007 are powerful and workable and substantially protect the health and safety of all who work in the construction industry". However, when you get halfway down, of the new regs it says "there are no specific and expressly defined responsibilities for the domestic client similar to those of the commercial client". But that's the same as the current regs, and the article says the current regs are powerful and workable and substantially protect the health and safety of all who work in the construction industry, so that's fine, surely.

The article conflates CDM applying to a project and the project being notifiable. I'm not sure if the author doesn't understand the difference, or is deliberately confusing them to try and make a point.

The second half is one long eulogy to CDM-C's, out of whose orifices it is apparent that the sun shines. Only CDM-Cs are capable of saving the world and all designers are stupid. I do wonder why, if CDM-Cs are so great, they needed to be legislated into existence. If you believe this article every project will want at least two or three, whether the law requires them or not...



You must have read a different article to me.
achrn  
#7 Posted : 12 January 2015 13:18:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

RayRapp wrote:

You must have read a different article to me.


I read http://constructionnatio...se-you-cannot-be-serious

What article were you commenting on?
Psycho  
#8 Posted : 12 January 2015 13:46:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Psycho

I think its the removal of the CDMc thats the biggest thing
------what are all of these Ex CDMcs going to do -- cant see how the HSE let this go through or am i missing something

unless of course the Principal Designer, designs health and safety into his building plans then the build will be 110% safe(is there such a thing as 110%) or they may be doing zero harm were no-one can ever have an injury, unless of course you do then you get your bonus docked or am i being synical

Why remove the trained and competent health and safety professional from the building site from the start of the project to the end.?
jay  
#9 Posted : 12 January 2015 14:06:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

In the CDM consultative document, it states:-

Replacing the CDM co-ordinator role with the principal designer
Para 40
HSE proposes to remove the CDM-c role. There is a widely held view, supported by
evidence, that the current approach is often bureaucratic and adds costs with little added
value. As such it is often ineffective. This view has been expressed partly in the evaluation,
but has been more clearly voiced in one-to-one discussions with industry stakeholders.
Appointments are often made too late, too little resource is made available, and those
involved in fulfilling the role are often not well embedded into the pre-construction project
team

http://consultations.hse...25317.1/PDF/-/cd261r.pdf


I am sure that in the responses, the CDM-C lobby would have "challenged" this and looked at the so called "evidence"


Refer to the HSE Consultation response from APS to this question on page 8 of 19:-

https://www.aps.org.uk/d...b25zZV90b19DRDI2MS5wZGY=

Brett Day SP  
#10 Posted : 12 January 2015 14:11:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Brett Day SP


I've been a Planning Supervisor and a CDM-C, most of the designers I've worked with have little real knowledge of how they should discharge their duties and tbh little if any interest. Some clients even less, appointing my colleagues and I after planning permission has been granted making ensuring that safety in design is factored in nearly impossible.

The first project I did as PS the lead designer told me "I design things that look pretty and win awards, I leave safety to you guys..."

Most of the designers I have worked with seem to follow the same approach. After years of the HSE failing to hold designers and clients to account, we now have the 'Principal Designer' role, to me this seems to be the blind and wantonly ignorant leading the blind. RIBA have said that it will take many of their members up to 2 years to get to understand the duties of the PD Role Granted they have not been doing the role, but they should know by now what the CDM-C role does!! It shouldn't be to difficult to work out that the PD role roughly combines the duties of the CDM-C and the Designer.

I think dropping the CDM-C role is a mistake. There are other changes that I could think of that would be of greater benefit.
jay  
#11 Posted : 12 January 2015 14:13:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

Article 3(3) of the TMCSD states:-

In the case of constructions sites:
— on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 working days and on which more than 20 workers are occupied simultaneously, or
— on which the volume of work is scheduled to exceed 500 person-days,

the client or the project supervisor shall communicate a prior notice drawn up in accordance with Annex III to the competent authorities before work starts.
RayRapp  
#12 Posted : 12 January 2015 14:36:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Brett Day SP wrote:

I've been a Planning Supervisor and a CDM-C, most of the designers I've worked with have little real knowledge of how they should discharge their duties and tbh little if any interest. Some clients even less, appointing my colleagues and I after planning permission has been granted making ensuring that safety in design is factored in nearly impossible.

The first project I did as PS the lead designer told me "I design things that look pretty and win awards, I leave safety to you guys..."

Most of the designers I have worked with seem to follow the same approach. After years of the HSE failing to hold designers and clients to account, we now have the 'Principal Designer' role, to me this seems to be the blind and wantonly ignorant leading the blind. RIBA have said that it will take many of their members up to 2 years to get to understand the duties of the PD Role Granted they have not been doing the role, but they should know by now what the CDM-C role does!! It shouldn't be to difficult to work out that the PD role roughly combines the duties of the CDM-C and the Designer.

I think dropping the CDM-C role is a mistake. There are other changes that I could think of that would be of greater benefit.


I can't disagree. Indeed, I would add that the current CDM Regs are arguably the most non-complied set of health and safety regulations. Sadly I can't see the new CDM Regs being any different, except possibly worse compliance.
bobhan  
#13 Posted : 12 January 2015 14:47:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bobhan

Surely Shirley any competent senior designer would ask for a competent health and safety professional to help in the designing out of any health and safety problems at the operational level cdmc by another name maybe?
Brett Day SP  
#14 Posted : 12 January 2015 15:13:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Brett Day SP


bobhan I would hesitate to call most designers competent (certainly the bulk of the ones I've dealt with), most designers I've worked with see CDM as a faff, something that gets in the way of their 'vision' or next architects award.

I had a designer get very miffed that I pointed out that his building design resulted in residents walking straight out the building into the path of artics making deliveries to a CHP plant building. The individual was adamantly against moving the entrance to the other end of the building (that allowed residents to walk onto a paved pedestrian area) as it would ruin the 'aspect' of the building. The client didn't understand the implications.

I quite bluntly described it thus: "You have an entrance that will put large lumps of metal into contact with human beings who are pink and squishy what do you think a pink and squishy mess will do to the aspect of the building?"

The room went very quiet and then the designer was told to alter his design.

Given that RIBA are saying their members could require up to 2 years to be competent with the new role and the draft talks about a 6 month transition period, it doesn't bode well.
bobhan  
#15 Posted : 12 January 2015 16:21:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bobhan

do not forget bims cradle to the grave design concept
JohnW  
#16 Posted : 12 January 2015 17:04:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

Instead of replacing the CDM-C role with a new role of ‘principal designer’, why can we not just give the designer (or the client) responsibility for having access to competent health & safety advice from start of the project. So, involve an H&S consultant at the pre-construction phase, and later whenever necessary.

Every CDM-C role that I have took on also included an ongoing H&S advisor role, usually weekly site inspections, scaffold inspections, and delivering site inductions, and also toolbox talks for any sub-contractors where it was felt necessary e.g. ladder training, dust mask, HAVS etc.

John
jay  
#17 Posted : 12 January 2015 17:09:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

All these discussions should have been sent as input to HSE at the consultation stage. Not much point is doing so now. All we can do is monitor how well or otherwise it works or not.

johnmurray  
#18 Posted : 12 January 2015 20:01:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

bob youel  
#19 Posted : 12 January 2015 23:05:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

what is meant by the comment "Why remove the trained and competent health and safety professional from the building site from the start of the project to the end.?"

As if it is meant that the CDMC is the competent H&S person then in my view people have got it wrong with regards to CDMC's as the vast amount of CDMC's that I have met [I act as a CDMC so I am not putting them all down needlessly] are not competent re H&S nor fire nor environmental areas etc. they are simply the designers appointed person ---- note I put 'designers appointed person' as most clients that I have met have never met their CDMC and do not know what one is

Only today I was at a brand new location that has been passed by the CDMC, designers and building control yet there are no lights outside so nobody can see!!!!!

Many CDMC's are excellent H&S people as well as CDMC's but they are in the minority in my experience and the only profession this site should be singing about is the virtues of the H&S person & yet again the groups representing H&S professionals have missed the boat and even the HSE see designers and CDMC's as the leads when it should be the H&S people
RayRapp  
#20 Posted : 13 January 2015 08:34:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Jay wrote:
All these discussions should have been sent as input to HSE at the consultation stage. Not much point is doing so now. All we can do is monitor how well or otherwise it works or not.



Maybe people did. I believe IOSH forwarded comments as well as other representative organisations - look what we ended up with. It was I fear a fait accompli due to the current political climate.
achrn  
#21 Posted : 13 January 2015 09:05:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Psycho wrote:

Why remove the trained and competent health and safety professional from the building site from the start of the project to the end.?


The CDM-C role set out in the CDM regs is not that of health and safety professional on the building site.
jay  
#22 Posted : 13 January 2015 09:55:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

The HSE collation of the responses to the consultation as presented to the HSE Board meeting on 13 August 2014 is at:-

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...014/130814/paugb1462.pdf

Regarding the Replacement of the CDM co-ordinator role with that of the Principal Designer (questions 9-10), the summary in the HSE paper states that:-

32. A small majority (52%) of all respondents supported the proposal to embed the pre-construction
co-ordination function within the existing project team. This proposal would replace the CDM coordinator
role with the principal designer role. Of those CDM co-ordinators who responded, 61%
opposed this approach. Of those who were not CDM co-ordinators, 81% supported the approach.

33. Industry stakeholders were generally supportive of the principle – most notably the Royal Institute
of British Architects (RIBA) and the Association for Project Safety (APS) (both with some
qualifications). There was a feeling that pre-construction co-ordination should be seen as an
embedded skill set within the project team rather than an ‘extra’.

34. Some concerns were raised by stakeholder groups and individual respondents alike. Firstly, that
HSE may have overestimated the appetite for designers to engage with the new role – a position
that is echoed in comments received from RIBA, who expressed some concerns about the ability
of designers to discharge the co-ordination function effectively without recourse to third-party
advice. The concern is therefore that the default position will not change in that the preconstruction
co-ordination function will be delegated to a third party, with an associated loss of benefits. HSE has discussed the basis for this concern with a number of stakeholders and has amended the IA in the light of these concerns to reflect the suggestion that some will continue to
delegate the co-ordination role, particularly in the first two years following the revision.

35. Secondly, it was felt that imposing a formalised system for co-ordination, and the appointments
which would accompany it, might be confusing for contractors working in the SME sector,
particularly those who generally undertake domestic construction and maintenance.


36. On balance, the proposed replacement of the CDM co-ordinator role with that of the principal
designer remains appropriate.


The IOSH response to the consultation is at:-
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/...M-2015-consultation.ashx
boblewis  
#23 Posted : 13 January 2015 12:52:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Wel researched article - Not a hope it is simply a one sided diatribe for a particular viewpoint. Having said that I do agree with the writer about the removal of the competence regulation but it was sadly abused by the 3rd party pre-qual assessors.

As for claiming that the CDMC was competent in H&S please do not make me choke on my beautiful oxtail soup and warm crusty roll
peter gotch  
#24 Posted : 13 January 2015 13:17:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Replacing requirements re competence with requirements necessary skills, knowledge and experience, and if an appointee is an organisation, the necessary organisational capability, or if running with Northern Ireland consultative document all the same + necessary training.

Reference to PAS 91 QQ which are essentially those in Appendix 4 of current ACOP.

paulw71  
#25 Posted : 13 January 2015 13:55:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paulw71

boblewis wrote:
Wel researched article - Not a hope it is simply a one sided diatribe for a particular viewpoint. Having said that I do agree with the writer about the removal of the competence regulation but it was sadly abused by the 3rd party pre-qual assessors.

As for claiming that the CDMC was competent in H&S please do not make me choke on my beautiful oxtail soup and warm crusty roll


To which Cdmc are you referring? Or is this a sweeping generalisation?
Stedman  
#26 Posted : 13 January 2015 14:50:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

peter gotch wrote:
Replacing requirements re competence with requirements necessary skills, knowledge and experience, and if an appointee is an organisation, the necessary organisational capability, or if running with Northern Ireland consultative document all the same + necessary training.

Reference to PAS 91 QQ which are essentially those in Appendix 4 of current ACOP.



Peter,

As one Project Manager colleague put it to me; "having the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience is surely another way of saying competence when you are no longer allowed to use that word".
6foot4  
#27 Posted : 13 January 2015 15:53:03(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
6foot4

Stedman wrote:
peter gotch wrote:
Replacing requirements re competence with requirements necessary skills, knowledge and experience, and if an appointee is an organisation, the necessary organisational capability, or if running with Northern Ireland consultative document all the same + necessary training.

Reference to PAS 91 QQ which are essentially those in Appendix 4 of current ACOP.



Peter,

As one Project Manager colleague put it to me; "having the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience is surely another way of saying competence when you are no longer allowed to use that word".



Exactly - competence is very much there in the new guidance! They've just disguised it and outsourced it to PAS91 which coincidently currently points back to the CDM 07 ACOP. PAS91 actually needs to be updated to remove reference to CDM07. Good news under PAS91 is that if you have OHSAS18001 certification you don't need to have SSIP accreditation to avoid having to answer the stage 1 equivalent questions.
bobhan  
#28 Posted : 14 January 2015 10:38:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
bobhan

Its a done deal boys and girls move on aka demia rules
Alfasev  
#29 Posted : 19 January 2015 16:35:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev

Does anyone else think the CITB industrial guidance’s are a waste of time? They are just a watered down version of the HSE guidance and of no use to professionals.
Alfasev  
#30 Posted : 19 January 2015 16:44:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev

And while I am at it, the APS appear useless at providing any route to a future for their members.
jhannon  
#31 Posted : 19 January 2015 16:46:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jhannon

I don't agree with the article, the author is obviously locked on to not wanting to welcome the change of the Regs, this shows with some of the comments made. I wonder whether the author has actually read the guidance for CDM 2015 or has just simply thrown his dolly out.

If you read the 2015 Regs in total isolation and not try and make CDM 2007 fit, it makes perfect sense.

The Principal Designer is not supposed to be a H&S professional and it doesn't say he / she should anywhere in the new Regs, it is in my view a different role, so much so that it is only in place until the design has finished.

Grrrr why do people resist change
Alfasev  
#32 Posted : 19 January 2015 17:00:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev

jhannon wrote:
I don't agree with the article, the author is obviously locked on to not wanting to welcome the change of the Regs, this shows with some of the comments made. I wonder whether the author has actually read the guidance for CDM 2015 or has just simply thrown his dolly out.

If you read the 2015 Regs in total isolation and not try and make CDM 2007 fit, it makes perfect sense.

The Principal Designer is not supposed to be a H&S professional and it doesn't say he / she should anywhere in the new Regs, it is in my view a different role, so much so that it is only in place until the design has finished.

Grrrr why do people resist change


Who is resisting change
firesafety101  
#33 Posted : 19 January 2015 18:13:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Happy New Year everybody, out with the old and in with the new.

Let us all remember that, once April arrives.

Throw away everything CDM 07 and keep on keeping on with CDM 15.
firesafety101  
#34 Posted : 19 January 2015 18:17:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Jay wrote:
Article 3(3) of the TMCSD states:-

In the case of constructions sites:
— on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 working days and on which more than 20 workers are occupied simultaneously, or
— on which the volume of work is scheduled to exceed 500 person-days,

the client or the project supervisor shall communicate a prior notice drawn up in accordance with Annex III to the competent authorities before work starts.


Does this mean "on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 days" there is no requirement for notification to the competent authorities before work starts? I mean if there will be less than 20 workers or not exceeding 500 person days?
6foot4  
#35 Posted : 19 January 2015 18:46:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
6foot4

FireSafety101 wrote:
Jay wrote:
Article 3(3) of the TMCSD states:-

In the case of constructions sites:
— on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 working days and on which more than 20 workers are occupied simultaneously, or
— on which the volume of work is scheduled to exceed 500 person-days,

the client or the project supervisor shall communicate a prior notice drawn up in accordance with Annex III to the competent authorities before work starts.


Does this mean "on which work is scheduled to last longer than 30 days" there is no requirement for notification to the competent authorities before work starts? I mean if there will be less than 20 workers or not exceeding 500 person days?


Yes.
peter gotch  
#36 Posted : 20 January 2015 10:21:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

FireSafety

Change in threshold for notification to align with the Directive expected to result in a reduction in the number of notifications of about 50%.

HSE have stated that they think they have enough intelligence from other sources to help them target smaller sites.
walker  
#37 Posted : 20 January 2015 10:37:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

peter gotch wrote:

HSE have stated that they think they have enough intelligence from other sources to help them target smaller sites.


Thats a bit irrelavant as they do not have the manpower to regulate them.
So our hospitals and benefits offices will be further clogged up with the victims of the cowboys who will replace any remaining decent law abiding builder trying to keep his folks safe.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.