"Poit of Work Risk Assessment". I've also heard this being referred to as "Dynamic Risk Assessment" (?!). Vain attempts by the employer to abbrogate responsibility to the employee when and if something goes wrong. You'll gather then that I'm as impressed with that approach as I am with the "single page" CDM2015 CPP discussed above. Surely a simple tenet for any profession is "be confident in your abilities, but be aware of your limitations". It is for the employer to be aware of the competence of his staff - and yes, it does vary across individuals. The other every-day expression of course is "Don't b**r about with things you know b***r-all about". Emergency. maintenance etc. should be a routine part of Risk Assessment, with attendant instruction, training etc. to employees via normal channels.

It's not that long ago that we had Designers creating wholly irrelvant and obfuscating "Designer Risk Assessments". That same banwagon created the overly bureaucratic approach which torpedoed the CDM Regulations at inception (Competency evaluations, ring binders of irrelevant Construction Phase Plans and Health and Safety Files, etc.) This is the third iteration of CDM and a time to surely try to get it right? From HSE: "A proportionate approach, avoiding unecessary bureaucracy". There is a requirement in CDM to have a Construction Phase Plan. As has already been said in this thread, this does not necessarily mean the creation of a piece of paper! Can we please avoid making the same mistakes made in '94 and '07?

Largely only because they were told to - I've been told more than once by a CDM-C that the only possible way they'd be able to approve our design was if we submitted designer risk assessments with before and after scores for every risk in the design. That assertion is just wrong in so many ways. However, the real point is that I think your tense is wrong - there are still people demanding paper for every conceivable risk. I worry that CDM15 makes it more likely, not less - regulation 9(3) requires the designer to provide information about residual risks to the PD. This is in addition to the duty in 9(4) to provide sufficient information to enable other duty-holders to comply with their duties (which was also in CDM 2007 at 11(6)). There does not appear to be a limitation in the regulations to only significant risks or sufficient information to the PD. The L153 guidance states the information passed should be "about significant risks", with this term defined in a glossary after the appendices, but is this enough to avoid a need to communicate every risk? Given that the PD is now jointly liable for all those risks, it seems to me eminently foreseeable that PDs are going to be demanding more information about more risks than was required under CDM 2007, not less. I also foresee that since the PD is going to need to review all the output and deliverables of each designer, they are going to want that information in a particular format, possibly as a single risk register or schedule rather than as notes on individual drawings. So just as we've reached the point where everyone has accepted that a separate, distant (probably dusty and cobweb-encrusted) risk register is a useless bit of bureaucracy, I think it is going to resurrect itself. I don't think they are going to be the same mistakes. I think they are going to be much worse, and the more detail I look into the regs and think about the actual application, the more problems I see.

Regulations are silent on directly 'receiving' or directly 'reading' a CPP - they only say it must be created. My argument is simply that (for smaller Projects) we need not create that which already exists elsewhere within a large Organisation. I do think this community can make a positive contribution by resisting an overly bureaucratic approach.

So Ron, do you think that IOSH should argue for a 'common sense' approach to health and safety just like Lord Young, Judith Hackett, et al?