Dear Forum Members,

I am looking to gather some advice on two counts with regards to the implementation of the CDM 2015 Regulations:

1 - Is anyone aware of impending changes to the Regulations, as in amendments, further guidance, new guidance from the HSE?

2 - We have a number of clients, who through the engagement of new consultants are now saying that we need to produce a CPP for all routine maintenance activities that we, as a business carry out on their sites, (mechanical & electrical services maintenance). The last time I checked & confirmed the HSE advised that such maintenace activities were to be treated in the same manner as they were under the 2007 regulations.

We already produce comprehensive & detailed risk documentation; assessments, method statements, safe systems of work, H&S Arrangements & COSHH assessments, our engineers also carry out dynamic risk assessments for every work activity which the client gets full visibility to.

To generate multiple CPP additional documents, is in my interpretation unnecessary and a waste of valuable resoruce and refelcts such Safety Consultants justifying their hefty fees - Opinions sought please?

With regards to your first question - no, I am not aware of any impending changes to CDM 2015 - they certainly need it!

A CPP is required for all construction projects. According to Regulation 2 (Interpretation) maintenance activities fall within the ambit of the regulations. However, in many cases this is not really practical. So, the options are to either provide a method statement and include the term CPP or there is a 'Busy Builder' CPP app provided by the HSE which can be easily used - dumbed down though it is. 

Some practitioners take the view the regulations are a nonsense and ignore the CPP aspect, others only require a CPP for major/high risk works and some believe that providing RA/MS is sufficient to meet the regulations, or at least, the 'spirit' of the regulations - take your pick.       

I've encountered a similar issue. We worked with the client to come up with a comprimise, that being issuing a CPP for the site which goes on to tick various CDM regulation boxes with the information provided i.e designer info/welfare arrangements, local hospital information et al.

This was done rather than ammend 170+ RAMS documents that were sufficient to cover the activities on site with CDM/CPP information on all of them as the time to produce these would have meant that a considerable cost would be passed on to the client. The same results could be achieved by simply creating a master document with the RAMS/COSHH feeding into this document

Hope this is helpful

Edited by user 02 February 2018 10:43:31(UTC)  | Reason: Lack of Coffee

The first question to ask is the "other maintenance" building, civil engineering or engineering construction work to a structure? If the answer is yes then CDM applies, for example: significant pipework/pump replacement, refitting/replacing electrical panels.

If however, this maintenance is routine in nature as previously stated e.g. replacing some wires, a leaking valve etc. then CDM does not apply as defined under the 2007 ACoP and RAMS etc. will be sufficient. 

The way to look at it is CDM was aimed at planning and early engagement with key people to identify, control and mitigate signifcant risk.

To ensure we are covered with our maintenance contractors at head office (which is a fixed site) we sat down and discussed all the potential jobs our maintenance team would carry out for us. Some would fall under CDM some would not.

To ensure there was no misunderstanding or grey area we then implemeted one CPP for the entire site covering all the contractor's activities rather than create a CPP for every single job as there would be hundreds of CPP. The CPP is the management document and is reviewed annually or if anything significant changes in the contractor's scope of works. For each task the contractor is still expected to produce RAMS etc.

This approach has reduced down the paperwork whilst maintaining legal compliance in a proportionate way which is exactly what CDM 2015 was intended for.

I hope this helps?

I think what Hilary must mean is that some of the provisions of CDM 2015 (such as appointments) don't apply if there is only one organisation doing the works, not that no part of CDM applies.

Originally Posted by: hilary

If all the maintenance tasks are undertaken by the one organisation then CDM 2015 does not apply.  It is only when you have more than one contractor on site that you start to get involved with these.

It's interesting because I (my org. took legal advice on this)

You often hear.....'CDM does not apply....' generally the individual is mistaking the appointment of PC, PD or notifiability for CDM application.

With regards maintantance tasks, CDM 2015 does very much apply but to what extent? I was able to establish that reasonable practicability (reasonableness) as it rightly should, does actually work very well here. A single contractor providing routine PPM or call out for a breakdown- are they inducted? have they receivied site rules for; welfare, emergency actions, first aid, assembly points, asbestos information (register) etc? does this constitute reasonable PCI information? have they provided a comprehensive RA/MS? does this constitute a reasonable CPP? what is the risk and what is reasonably being done to ensure that the individual and those that can be affected are safe? 

Application of the law is paramount but it's more important to ensure that those that are undertaking the tasks and those that could be affected are being cared for. The more red tape you apply the more people will avoid complying.

Put those clipboards away, this is 2018.

Hilary, your a better man or woman than most, well done.

Thanks everyone for your views, it is interesting to see how diverse peoples opinions are on this piece of legislation, which to my mind was ill concieved and badly written.

I don't think either our client or my employer have anything to gain from writing unnecessary CPP's for all of these sites when we already have excellent H&S Systems, processes and documentation in place.

I shall continue to defend our position, however the latest communications from our client point towards the requirement for CPP's to be place on every site!