One year on from the introduction of CDM 2015, Christian McCale of Lucion Consulting looks at the current situation.

 

"With the first anniversary of the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM 2015) fast approaching, the debate surrounding its introduction shows no signs of letting up.

One year after the introduction of the principal designer role created considerable controversy and uncertainty in the construction industry, it is the future interpretation of the regulations which is now attracting attention.

In particular, the issue was raised when the HSE’s Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) reported that the majority of its members thought that the case for an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) to support the regulations had not been made and that the guidance document L153 should suffice.

Although a final decision has yet to be announced, with the CDM 2015 regulations now requiring understanding among an even greater number of people to ensure compliance for all types of construction activities, there are many in the industry who believe that the need for guidance and clarification is more important than ever.

In particular, those in favour of a new ACOP point out its special legal status and its role in providing the only true and definitive benchmark for compliance.

As well as best practice advice, it is also argued that the lack of an ACOP also poses questions of competence. The previous ACOP had a series of questions that specifically targeted the competency needed to undertake a CDM role. This has now changed, with the new regulations simply requiring individuals/organisations to have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and capability to undertake the role.

In practice, this can be a very grey area and until test cases emerge, the lack of new ACOP offering examples or a more defined application means the task of assessing who to employ for a specific task is very difficult and open to interpretation.

Whether this information is best provided in an informal context or included in an ACOP is the nature of the debate now being carried out, but in the meantime, there is understandably some concern over the increased risk of enforcement actions and penalties.

Although CONIAC’s view on this is that there is no evidence that compliance or prosecution outcomes will be affected by the lack of an ACOP, there are many still asking the question whether this is really the time to be without an ACOP, given the expansion of CDM and the numbers of fatalities and accidents still affecting the construction industry.

As things stand, the ACOP jury is still out and the construction sector awaits the HSE’s decision with considerable interest.”