No it is not.

CDM sets out a number of specific duties, if this was one of them, it would be possible to quote the clause that covers it. It's just not in the regulations, nor in the Guidance (either L153 or the CITB guidance).  Complete fiction.

Hi Damian

Under CDM 2007 one of the specific Client duties was to check that an adequate CPP was in place before work started on site.

This was in addition to the general duties on the Client throughout the duration of the project - i.e. through the design and planning stage, prior to the start of the construction stage and then throughout that stage.

Now, under the thinned out CDM 2015, with the minimum of added extra specific requirements there is no specific requirement for anyont to check the CPP before work starts.

In practice, just as the Client often asked the CDM Co-ordinator for advice on the adequacy of the CPP before work started in the CDM 2007 era, so these days the Client often asks their PD or a "CDM Advisor" (or similar term) for advice on the CPP.

But it ain't set in stone and in either 2007/2015 regime it was/is up to the Client to decide what to do to meet their general duties throughout the duration of the project.

No PI policy I have worked under would let a PD certify that the CPP is adequate and fit for purpose.  Designer's insurance is generally extremely touchy about fitness for purpose.

With respect to what is in 11(2), "take into account" does not mean approve, correct, or require changes to.  I can't see any way that a requirement to take into account any CPP can be interpreted as a duty on the PD to be correcting or approving it - the words just don't have that meaning (and if the authors intended that meaning they could very easily have put in words that did have that meaning).

firesafety - your comment does not answer the question posed in the thread - which is about a DUTY on a PD, not what a PD may or may not do in practice.

The PD or a CDM Advisor or somebody with some other title such as Contract Administrator might often be asked to review the CPP before work starts on site (and sometimes later) and may comment if they see something apparently remiss.

But that doesn't mean there is a DUTY to do so, let alone a DUTY to "sign off" the CPP as being fit for purpose which (as has already been stated) would introduce massive problems with this person's PII and other issues.

It is the DUTY of the Principal Contractor to have an adequate CPP in place before work starts on site and throughout the construction phase.

Now, if there are occasions where a PD is finding issues that the PC needs to address, the PC (and perhaps any adviser) has got themselves into deep water. 

Of course this happens but it shouldn't and is likely to be taken into account in post Contract review which may well impact on the PC's ability to win further work with the Client.

firesafety, one should always read legislation in full rather than in part to get a proper interpretation of what its intent is. Basic principle of the interpretation of ALL legislation.

Regulation 13(5) of CDM 2015 says:

(5) The principal contractor must liaise with the principal designer for the duration of the principal designer’s appointment and share with the principal designer information relevant to the planning, management and monitoring of the pre-construction phase and the coordination of health and safety matters during the pre-construction phase.

So, this is all aobut the "pre-construction phase" which, of course, often extends into the "construction phase" as design changes, temporary works design is done and such like.

It would be very difficult to competently interpret Regulation 13(5) as indicating that the Principal Designer has ANY responsibility when it comes to matters which the law assigns primary responsibility to the Principal Contractor.

sorry B2BCert how does your post add to the discussion?

Looks like a commercial advertisement for a standard that mnay have replaced.

REPORTED post by B2BCert just in case Roundtuit hasn't beaten me to it.

The original wasn't but now user savannah has been busy - REPORTED