achrn
You raise two separate issues.
As for the term "lead designer" in the Regs made under BSA this appears to be a case of trying to nail down every potential variant in procurement. I quote:
(6) Where there is only one contractor working on a project that contractor is to be treated as appointed as the principal contractor and must fulfil the duties of the principal contractor set out in these Regulations.
(7) Where paragraph (6) applies and—
(a)there is only one designer, or it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be only one designer working on a project, that designer must fulfil the duties of the principal designer set out in these Regulations; or
(b)there is more than one designer or it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be more than one designer working on a project at any time—
(i)the designers must agree in writing which designer is to fulfil the duties of the principal designer set out in these Regulations (“the lead designer”);
(ii)the lead designer must give a copy of the agreement to the client.
So this deals with the rare scenario where there is only one "contractor" on a project and to be honest I have not checked how a "contractor" is defined in these new Regulations but is defined in similar terms to the interpretation in CDM a scenario which will vary occur, as so few Contractors do everything inhouse without ANY subbies including ANY self-employed workers.
,,,,and says that even if there is a single Contractor there MUST be a PD even if such role is NOT required under CDM.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
However as for your assertion that CDM is clear that more than one PD is prohibited, I don't read CDM that way and have worked on big projects split into packages with separate PDs for each.
It is up to the Client to decide how broadly to define the "project" and whether to redefine the "project" as it progresses.
As example on the A9 Perth to Inverness Dualling Programme, initially budgeted to be completed in 10 years at a cost of £3.5bn, a single Designer was appointed to progress the Programme. They were appointed as CDM Co-ordinator, broadly the equivalent of the PD under CDM 2007.
The prelminary design then identifed 12 mini projects, P1 to P1 though P5 and P6 were subsequently amalgamated.
Those 12 mini projects were then split into one, Luncarty to Birnam, awarded to the original designer for the seheme but by this time one of the Northern mini projects had already been awarded to a different designer and that was included in one of the three Lots which were then divided up amongst three designers.
So, now we had three Lots + Luncarty to Birnam.
Later, little packages were added to each Lot for improvements on part of the network ALREADY dualled.
How many times would you like the Client to redefine its idea of the "project" or "project"s?
I suggest that if you recognise the implications of the Interpretation Act then CDM offers the flexibility for the "client" or "client"s to apply a pragmatic approach that does not preclude whatever procurement approach is taken.
Hence, as example, Scottish Water and Scottish and Southern Energy Networks might take the opportunity of a major road infrastructure programme to do some upgrades of their utility coverage that extends beyond simply doing what is necessary for the road widening. If that means them acting as the "client" for all the DISCRETE works on their utilities, so be it.
In contrast, it would be unlikely that some farmer would wish to take on the responsibility for doing what would be needed for their PRIVATE water supply.
The art is to work out where the interfaces are and to manage any potential clashes.
Surely you are not one of those Safety Czars who wants to make life more difficult by sticking to rules set in stone?
I also realise that the HSE's preferred online notification system wasn't set up for these sophisticated procurement arrangements but that's a problem of HSE's entirely unnecessary making and it is up to the HSE to sort our its system.