For the avoidance of doubt here is the text of the part of the Regulations which have been referenced:

Principal designer and principal contractor

11D.—(1) Where there is more than one contractor, or it is reasonably foreseeable that more than one contractor will be working on a project, the client must appoint in writing—

(a) a designer with control over the design work as the principal designer for the purposes of these Regulations, and

(b) a contractor with control over the building work as the principal contractor for the purposes of these Regulations.

(2) A client is treated as complying with the requirement in paragraph (1) if, instead of appointing a person for the purposes of these Regulations, they certify, in writing, that the person who is the CDM principal designer, or, as the case may be, the CDM principal contractor, is treated as appointed as the principal designer or, as the case may be, the principal contractor, for the purposes of these Regulations

[My bold italics]

So, at least at first reading, there doesn't appear to be anything in these Regulations for an existing CDM 2015 PD and/or PC to turn round to the Client to say "Well, we thought we had the skills, knowledge and experience and organisational capabililty [all aka the word "competence" as used in previous iterations of CDM] to act as PD or PC under CDM 2015, but we are a bit hesitant about being competent to take on these new duties and we are sorry but we didn't make proposals to take on these responsibilities and, if we even consider doing so, it will cost you, not least as we might have to either take on specialist staff or upskill our existing team to be sufficiently competent."

Originally Posted by: dcpjon

Although most work requires building control approval, am i correct in understanding that if it does not require building control approval, then there will be no requirement to appoint a BSA PD/ PC?

That is my understanding, yes.

That is the origin of my concern about regulation 6, 11D, 2 - there is lots of civil engineering work that falls under CDM but does not fall under building regs. Roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, embankments, cliff face stability, big holes in the ground all fall under CDM and require CDM PD, but don't fall under building regs. My company does millions of pounds of design work that falls under CDM every year, but we don't do buildings and don't have experience (or expertise) of building regs.

Not yet, but they only published the regs last week (a whole 15 days before they come into force).

I've realised there are some mechanisms for someone appointed unilaterally under 6, 11D, 2 to respond - though it's not clear how they are supposed to work.

6, 11E, 7 says "A must not act ... as the principal designer in relation to any design work if A does not satisfy the requirements in [competence clauses]" though it doesn't explain what happens when the client says you are PDftpotR but the law says you must not act as the PD.

6,11I, 1 says that "Where at any time a person (A) ceases to satisfy the requirements in [competence requirements], A must ... in a case where A is the principal designer or the principal contractor, notify the client".  Again, no idication what the client does about it.

Another annoying niggle I've spotted is that they've co-opted the term "lead designer", which has been in common parlance as an organisation doing the bulk of the design but not (necesarily) the Principal Designer.  6, 11D, 7, (b), (i) now says that "lead designer" is whichever of multiple designers is fulfilling the duties of principal designer.  I don't understand what the difference is between a designer fulfilling the duties of principal designer and a principal designer (i.e. don't understand why they needed to co-opt this term), but hey ho, looks like the industry needs to find another synonym of principal / lead.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Not sure I see that problem for designers of civil engineering projects who don't do "buildings"

A windfarm project with miles of access roads, a handful of bridges, twenty major concrete foundations and one small switchgear building.

Do you want to have the CDM PD chosen on the basis of 'knows how to building regs a shed'?  I wouldn't, I'd want the CDM PD to know something about roads bridges and giant concrete blocks in the ground, but the designer doing all of that doesn't know much about building regs, so their insurer has said "thou shalt not be PDftpotR under building regs".  Meanwhile, the client has said "you're CDM PD, so I hereby decree you to be DftpotR under building regs".  Now you're carrying uninsured risk.

That's the problem I see for civils designers that don't do buildings.

Edited by user 22 August 2023 11:01:58(UTC)  | Reason: clarification

The clause about when one must appoint a PD goes as follows.

(3) The appointments under this regulation must be made—

(a)in relation to a project which includes higher-risk building work for which an application for building control approval must be submitted to the regulator, before that application is submitted;

Yep, fair enough, but then...

(b)in relation to any other project, before the construction phase begins

Oh dear. This is post #47. I shall come back when it reaches 92!

Edited by user 23 August 2023 10:10:10(UTC)  | Reason: I can't spell!