To clarify the situation, the HSE consultation is now proposing separate triggers:
The consultation document states that the new, higher notification threshold will result in the number of projects notified to HSE annually halving, from 115,000 a year to 55,000.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
In addition, the HSE proposes to abolish the role of the CDM Coordinator, shifting their pre-construction coordination responsibilities on to the principal designer, and to replace the Approved Code of Practice with shorter, industry-written guidance that will have less legal force.
The HSE hopes this move will lead to a reduction in the industry’s enthusiasm for “competence” accreditation schemes, for contractors, consultants and individuals.
So what do industry representatives make of the new proposals? Dr Billy Hare MCIOB, a lecturer and senior research fellow at Glasgow Caledonian University, felt that the separate CDM and notification triggers could cause confusion.
“The 1994 regulations had different triggers for CDM and notification, and then they were brought into alignment in 2007. So this is a substantial enough change that people are going to be confused,” he said. “I think there will have to be more guidance prepared for the industry than they anticipated to facilitate the change.”
Hare is a member of the working group drawing up the guidance for principal designers. “We wrote the draft without sight of this document, so I think we will have to reassess it. The criteria of two contractors ultimately means that smaller projects will need a Principal Designer when previously they didn’t need a CDM Coordinator. ”
He added: “My overarching feeling is that the HSE is going down the route of ‘copy out’ from the EU directive, and not necessarily taking on board other views. The rationale for aligning it [notification and CDM] was to make it less complex, but that’s not how this version seems to me.”
John Wrightson, head of CDM and health and safety at architect Stride Treglown, felt that contractors on smaller projects not previously in scope could struggle with the CDM requirements to produce a health and safety plan and file, and questioned whether the HSE’s calculation of £30m annual savings to the industry from not appointing CDMCs would materialise. “The cost will just be hidden in the designer’s fee, so that’s a bit misleading.”
He also added: “At the moment, on [less than 30-day] projects where there’s no notification, there tends to be a lower level of compliance and oversight of health and safety. If you notify, that sometimes shifts the mindset – you’re on the HSE database and there’s a chance they’ll be on the phone.”
But Peter Caplehorn, technical director of architect Scott Brownrigg, welcomed the changes. “The problem I’ve got is with people trying to nit-pick. What you need to do is ensure that the project is constructed safely, and that should be in everyone’s DNA across the industry. We’ve struggled with these requirements [since 1994] because people want to amplify bits and pieces, and it just makes more work for people.”
Consultant Richard Thorne MCIOB, meanwhile, was concerned that CDM 2007 did not adequately recognise that Design and Build projects often see considerable design work continuing after the appointment of the principal contractor, and said he would be examining the new consultation document for evidence this had changed.
