You plan to do these activities safely of course ... what else? ... why wouldn't you?

A business I worked for had a similar question, most of it's operations involved free issue (client supplied) like for like replacement gearbox's or drive motors or conveyor parts and working at ground floor level. Usually half a shift of work and no more  with the same four/five people carrying out the work each time.

We produced a simple Construction Phase Plan and Risk Assessment/Method Statement that covered everything we could foresee and reviewed and reproduced it each time the job came up. That allowed us to cover off the CDM element, make allowances for change in the working environment and any other contractors working in the area. 

Never been tested or challenged as yet so can't guarantee it fully meets the requirement but it's a starting point.

Mike - you provide a very good example of a "project" which almost certainly would NOT fall within the scope of CDM (based on the case law as to what constituted a "building operation" as defined in Section 176 of the Factories Act 1961) but where exactly the same principles apply.

You bring in contractors to do X, Y or Z so there is an interface between operations and others doing something that is somehow out of the norm.

Sections 3 and 4 of HSWA say you have to manage that interface, so does the Management of Heatlh and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

So, perhaps you have a policy that says that such work has be done under a Permit to Work system and you ask the contractor to come up with a method statement and then you agree to that, and then monitor its implementation and compliance.

All of which amounts to a "Construction Phase Plan" whether or not it is so titled. Nothing in CDM says that the CPP has to be called a CPP!!

....and to follow up AK's point if there is more than one Contractor you have to have a Principal Contractor but if CDM DOES apply if the Client doesn't appoint a PC the role falls back to the Client to do what you appear to have done!

So whether or not you decide to treat the works as being subject to CDM just doing what is sensible ticks the boxes.

AK also reminds us that most "construction" projects are NOT notifiable - as was the case BEFORE CDM.

I have investigated 40 fatal accidents and from a quick review I think that 36 happened when construction work was being done. About half of those were during work that would not have been notifiable (if done in the UK) before or since CDM.

Yes Chris

FA 1961 Section 176 has gone but the CDM definition of "construction work" derives almost entirely from the definitions of "building operation" and "work of engineering construction" (WEC) in Section 176.

So when the Courts come to decide what is "construction work" they are likely to be influenced by the authoriative judgments on what was a "building operation".

No case law on what was a WEC as nobody ever bothered to argue that some substantial civil engineering works was NOT construction!

Based on the case law I doubt that they would conclude that what Mike describes would fall within scope.

CDM covers some "plant" but "plant" of a nature akin to a structure, so perhaps a newspaper printing press (absolutely HUGE!) or a sugar silo.

Whereas the case law (several judgments) indicates that a installing or maitaining a conveyor (or for that matter a small printing press) at floor level would not fall under the remit of "building operation" and thence "construction work". 

Mike, but that is what I thought would be covered hence I copied a section as it does not have to be  construction as such. My bold

(e)the installation, commissioning, maintenance, repair or removal of mechanical, electrical, gas, compressed air, hydraulic, telecommunications, computer or similar services which are normally fixed within or to a structure,

Hence why I thought a conveyor would be! Some conveyors I guess are quite small but some fill the building. The legislation seems to give no indication of size limits / restrictions to application. Fixed within or to a structure could just mean bolted down or to a wall etc, it would not necessarily mean cast in place with concrete. Again, though it makes little difference unless the job is so big it become notifiable.

One last comment, what a good topic this was. It's provoking a respectful debate in which we can express an opinion from our experiences that might just help inform someone elses response and enhance knowledge across the industry!

Chris

The problem here is not the word "services" in the part of the definition of "construction work" that you refer to you but the very last word in that definition - "structure" in itself defined in CDM

“structure” means— (a) any building, timber, masonry, metal or reinforced concrete structure, railway line or siding, tramway line, dock, harbour, inland navigation, tunnel, shaft, bridge, viaduct, waterworks, reservoir, pipe or pipeline, cable, aqueduct, sewer, sewage works, gasholder, road, airfield, sea defence works, river works, drainage works, earthworks, lagoon, dam, wall, caisson, mast, tower, pylon, underground tank, earth retaining structure or structure designed to preserve or alter any natural feature, and fixed plant;

There was no definition of "structure" in Section 176 of the Factories Act 1961 - instead the definitions of "building operation" and WEC (the latter as extended twice) were framed so as to include just about everything listed in the CDM definition of "structure" but adding, in particular, the last two words in the definition with the stated intent of closing some perceived loopholes.

HSE explained in the Consultation Document for what was at the time given the acroynm CONDAM what they were trying to achieve and specifically referenced plant such as newspaper printing presses - it resonated with me as it was quite soon after the presses in the former Glasgow Herald building had been dismantled leaving the shell of a building around the gap. A huge logistical challenge to do a project whose risks were similar to those of demolishing a building of several storeys.

However this didn't entirely solve the issue as CDM does not contain any definition of "fixed plant"!

Which takes us back to the extensive case law on the interpretation of what was a "building operation".

It's not entirely a coincidence that when I opened up my 1976 edition of Redgrave's Health and Safety in Factories it opened up at Section 176 - that is more often than not where I want it to open!

Redgrave comments quite succinctly:

"No general answer is possible to the question whether the installation of plant constitutes the construction of a bulding. It must depend upon the circumstances of each case whether such an operations attracts the regulations in question or not" - those "regulations" being the four codes of Construction Regulations 1961 and 1966 - most of whose requirements have been consolidated into more recent Regulations usually with only minor changes.

So, since some of the case law said that construction (in the broader sense) of plant was a "building operation" whereas other case law concluded that it wasn't this rather leaves us in limbo - EXCEPT that it really doesn't matter either way since HSWA is there as the overarching legislation to cover any gap in the scope of CDM.