Hi Lee Mac, I find that this is a reoccurring problem for CDMC across the UK, my diagnoses is that Designers are not 'buying into' the whole ethos of the CDMC Regs! Wot i try and do is suggest a spreadsheet that is split into three sections; construction phase, maintenance and decommissioning, sometimes we start with a blank sheet and try and get the designers, namely the M&E, C&S and then the lead architect to feed into at the start of the project and consequently at Design Team Meetings review it as the design progresses up to going out to tender stage! The other method that the APS etc arent too keen on is giving them a full spreadsheet and asking them to delete what is not relevant etc... I find myself asking designers; "is it not unreasonable to ask someone who is designing a new building/workplace to consider the health and safety of those who are going to build it, use and demolish it! We still get the generic designers risk assessments thrown at us and its a task to persuade them that we dont want the generic stuff only the relevant info on significant risk etc etc So i share your pain - you are not alone!!!

Gents, Glad to hear I am not alone with this one. I have a current Client who is a major global player and thankfully after enlightening them on the merits of having a fully encompassing DRM they are 100% behind me on this and have made the lead Designer aware that if this is not forthcoming then payments will cease and they have assured all at the Design Team meeting that they will not move on this until they receive my confirmation that all information received was satisfactory- it was a real breath of fresh air for me, but it is very early in the Design to say how successful this method will prove. However to date I am receiving the usual generic information a lot sooner than normal, so here's hoping. In an effort to get the big guns on board I contacted the HSE but they have said rather than demonstrate what needs to be included, any Designer worth their salt will know what to include, so no assistance there I am afraid other than refer to the ACoPs and best practice. @ BOD, you refer to the spreadsheet and Andy you refer to the HAZOP,- how productive have your efforts been using these methods, i.e. did they provide the information freely or was it simply a matter of you using your powers of persuasion or do you feel that you are doing most of the footwork to get the issue ironed out. Regards Lee

Lee, either way i find extracting info from designers a very slow process! Althought the the method that i have found successful was on one project i recieved 22pages of DRA, and sat down with the designer (C&S) and went through it, deleting the generic info right there in front of them basically butchering there DRA's and emphasising the point that its only info on the mitigation/identification of the significant risks that we require. I also deleted their comments about what the PC should do (this is only relevant in high risk erectional sequence items etc i.e. something that a competent PC wouldnt necessarily know about!!) and there is no point telling a PC that they need to "comply with WAH Regs, or need to shore trenches etc" I emphasised the point about Design Team actions, ie commission surveys i.e geotech, topo, asbestos etc is a pro active approach and also the production of detailed phasing drawings, and construction sequences. I think its going to be a long hard battle to get buy in from designers and having spoken to a leading member of the APS he was off the opinion that HSE/APS when introducing the Regs didnt get the commitment from Architect Professional Bodies to the extent that obviously is required. All in all i think that the CDM Regs are a vast improvement on the previous - and would also point out that there is still plenty within the H&S industry that arent fully up to date with the requirements of the new regs!!