Hi David
Much of this comes down to fundamental principles.
I don't suppose there are many OSH professionals around the World who think that it was OK for the Titan to take paying guests to the bottom of the ocean in a submersible that apparently had had no independent design checks.
Now, let's suppose that the most hard line Brexiteers get their way and got CDM removed from the statute book, which is not improbable. Explanation at foot of this posting.
We would be left with duties on you as the occupier of the premises under Section 2 of HSWA towards your staff working on this extension, and under Section 3 to others interfacing with it e.g. as the drivers of delivery vehicles who are either employed by other companies or self-employed. [I could throw in Section 4 but that would just unnecessarily complicate the scenario].
Similar duties on e.g. the designer of the "structure".
All subject to the qualification of "reasonably practicable".
Which implicitly dictates doing a risk assessment.
Which tells you, inter alia, that the risks include the structure collapsing either because it is simply not fit for purpose, or because it is not protected from collapse arising from vehicular impact.
....and if there is a BS or other industry standard that is routinely implemented then compliance with that standard has become "reasonably practicable" even if it wasn't when the standard was originally introduced.
So the designer needs to work out what is needed to stop the structure collapsing under its own weight and what impact protection it needs.
....and very difficult to argue that it would not be reasonably practicable to insist that someone verified the design.
So, as the person procuring the design you have a duty to tell the designer what the parameters are - including what size of vehicle this platform will potentially be used with, and what is or will be in place to reduce the impact loading or to require the design to incorporate mitigations.
The designer SHOULD know what will prevent an HGV travelling at a maximum speed of X mph and whilst having a gross weight of Y tonnes from damaging the platform to the extent that it is liable to be the cause of injury
- and you probably want the design to do more - to prevent damage that is costly to repair BEFORE it is liable to be a cause of injury.
So, I think that Sections 2 and 3 implicitly say that the design comes with details of how all this will be achieved (and then, of course, that the structure is constructed to the design!).
Ditto that the design needs verification whether by a check in the design house or independently and a BS or other standard might indicate which is appropriate (and implicitly "reasonably practicable".
There are standards for most things! As example there is a standard to tell someone putting out typical temporary road signs how much ballast or equivalent to use to stop the sign blowing over in the wind. The standard recognises that the wind speed which should be catered for is higher in a remote exposed location than in an urban environment. The reason why we all see so many temporary road signs lying on their faces is that the ballast is either not put on, or is insufficient for the local conditions.
So, I could almost guarantee that there is a standard to tell the designer that if they are going to use concrete bollards to stop the HGV demolishing this platform what the size and positionnig should be (or a range of options).
Demise of CDM?
Section 1(2) of HSWA limits the ability of a Government to deregulate occupational health and safety legislation.
Whatever Regulations are made must be such as to "maintain or improve" the standards achieved by legislation in place.
That DOESN'T mean you can't deregulate.
If the legislation has only had impact to a standard LESS than required in the legislation then whatever replaces it only has to require what has been achieved.
CDM 2015 has four Parts. Part 4 is sacrosanct as it is a consolidation of what was previously incorporated in bits of the four codes of Construction Regulations 1961 and 1966, then consolidated into the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulatons 1996. Everything entirely achievable and thus if Part 4 were to be revoked it would have to be reinstated in broadly similar wording.
Part 1 is the boring bit, inclusive of the all important "definitions" some of which would naturally fall if CDM 2015 were to be revoked and replaced with a slimmed down iteration.
Which leaves Parts 2 and 3. The management aspects which are a relatively minor revision of what was in place in CDM 1994, and then mostly consolidated into CDM 2007 when a decision was taken to stick CDM and CHSWR 1996 together by the introduction of a Part 4.
If Parts 2 and 3 have NOT had the intended impact then it is entirely possibly to revoke them.
Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3 of CDM 2007 and 2015 has been almost entirely absent, as was enforcement of the management provisions in the entirety of CDM 1994.
In simple terms, enforcement since CDM 1994 came into force on 31 March 1995 has been very heavily skewed to going after Contractors. Specifically enforcement of CDM 2007/2015 has been heavily skewed to the requirements of Part 4.
In other words, what has happened is that usually Contractors have been given Notices or have been prosecuted for offences for breach of requirements that are worded in almost exactly the same words as before anyone drafted the first iteration of CDM.
P