Welfare facilities under CDM

[Gus Potter]

On 06/11/2022 at 20:07, Post and beam said:

First of all i am not even sure this is the best sub heading for this post, Apologies.

No need to applogise, you are asking a great question.

 

On 06/11/2022 at 20:16, Russdl said:

I think it would be well worth asking Potton exactly what they expect of you to fill their requirements and do the bare minimum to meet their demands. 

I hope this helps. Not often I caveat what I write on BH but in this instance I do in that my following comments are without predudice. Also forgive my spelling / grammer as this is informal.

 

In the selfbuild market and just for folk building an extension the CDM statutory legislation has wide and very onerous implications.

 

@Post and beam I'll start with some general thoughts on how you deal with / things to think about as a self builders / say an extension and then try and offer some thoughts on what you maybe can do next.

 

I have made previous posts on CDM but the concept of the statutory legislation (the stuff you can go to jail for)  is this. The big buildiers used to kill lots of their workers. Once we reduced the mortality / injury rate rightly the focus turned to small builders / the self employed and folk building their own house / extension. Some self builds can be very substancial projects!

 

Some small attic conversions can be partcularly dangerous as you can loose a lot of stability in a gable wall. A small gable wall can kill easily if it falls over and old buildings can be unpredictable in the way they behave... often as others have mucked about with them in the past and there is no record.

 

Now it is actually fairly easy to comply with the CDM regulations, much is common sense. If you don't then you run the risk that you may get drawn into some thing that is no fault of your own. One example. You get a quote from a builder to do an extension. One of their employees gets hurt. HSE turn up and the employee gets a lawyer.. at some point you will get sucked in and this will probably cost you money and be very stressful.

 

The key to avoid this is as soon as you start to talk to your Designer / Architect / builder ask about CDM?

 

It sounds odd but CDM pretty much kicks in at the conceptual design stage. You can look up the latest RIBA advice, but the simple way is to think along the lines of.. health and safety is an intrinsict part of any project.. it is part of the design from concept onwards. Major contractors will set aside some 3 -5 % of the project cost to keep everyone safe.. this also applies to you! Ask yourself.. can you afford to build and not kill anyone.. frankly if someone gets badly hurt on your build you will find it hard to live with.. I have been on sites where folk have been killed.. it bears heavily on you.

 

As a self builder you could rack up some big legal costs.. trying to defend even if you are not at fault. The thing is that we live in a claims culture.. you have an asset that folk can go after. While you may not be directly to blame a claims lawyer will pick the easy target. I was up at an IStructE talk.. one thing the presentor made clear was this. Folk know that SE's carry a lot of insurance.. so we are prime targets for an easy claim. You as plot / home owners are also an easy target,  defending any claim is going to be horrid.

 

Now I design a lot of wall slappings.. making a house open plan. Here it is pretty straight forward. I talk to the Client, do my Planning / SE  BC drawings and calcs. The objective is to allow them to get builder's prices. But there is a big bit slapped all over the drawings that says that the Client is a domestic Client and the builder has to take on the duties of the Client also. This reflects the current HSE advice and it also works.. as often I get a heads up on who the contractor is.. I avoid if possible the cowboys.

 

I also do a few other jobs that are larger. Here is a thought. You should factor into any build cost the 3 -5 % for safety.. ask you Contractor this question.. if they have no answer then ask.. where does the risk lie?

 

On a selfbuild as soon as you start to talk to say an Architect / designer raise the question about CDM . They will guide you. If you are a seasoned self builder then anticipate what I will require (SE) from you before I touch your job.. how do we allocate responsibility and risk?

 

It sounds complicated but it's not.. often we look at things and say .. if we want to build a high wall how do we brace it during construction? Often it's these things that kill folk and it's not hard to design to keep folk safe.. the important thng is to catch it early. Funnily if you think about these things early is also leads to good economic design. Sometimes the temporary works can be used to brace the building .. everyone is a winner!

 

I have laid it on a bit thick above but in summary what I'm say is grasp the nettle early if you are self building or doing a big extension that you want to manage youself.

 

 

5 hours ago, Post and beam said:

I'd agree with that. Paying for a portaloo and a warm shed is something i am happy to do.

I would go back to Potton and ask for help.

 

Your opening gambit may be to write along the lines of...

 

1/ I have tried my best but I'm stuck. Just be honest.. as a domestic Client this can carry a lot of weight, mind you I write to folk.. hey your data tables are not clear.. can you explaIn.. ? Best to ask as a dafty and appear thick rather than invite disaster?

 

2/ I want to buy your product but just don't understand the health and saftey (CDM) aspect not least and what I need to do.

 

3/ I am a novice and need guidance from you about who for example is the Principle designer.

 

4/ I recognise that I may have missed some key stages in the design in terms of HSE planning and CDM compliance but I want to get back on track.

 

5/  Please can you help me. Can you put me in touch with your HSE person.

 

Now that may get a result. It is a double edged sword.. you write in such a way that while asking for advice.. if they don't provide it or give answer it makes them potentially liable.

 

If you don't then you can start to play hard ball.

 

1/ Refer back to their offer.. they should have mentioned who is the Principle Designer.. the PD.. and ask again.

 

I would be very surprised if their HSE person does not get in touch and help you out. If you deal with the big ticket items they will probably tell you what to do with the bogs and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shuff27]

I don't know if this is specifically covered under CDM regs but I would advise all self builders to have a decent first aid kit on site & make sure contractors know where it is.  Mine was needed on several occasions, generally for minor cuts, and my subbies were appreciative that there was a better option than just wrapping a used hanky around the cut.

 

I recorded any such incidents in my site diary.

[PeterW]

37 minutes ago, shuff27 said:

would advise all self builders to have a decent first aid kit on site & make sure contractors know where it is. 

All contractors should carry their own

first aid kit - you can open another box of liability worms when you start providing first aid although there is a little bit better protection in law for a first aider !

[shuff27]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

All contractors should carry their own

first aid kit - you can open another box of liability worms when you start providing first aid although there is a little bit better protection in law for a first aider !

 

Yep, I'm sure contractors should carry their own - but guess what, they don't.  Of all the trades I've used only the timber frame erection team & the window installers had their own first aid kit.  All the others were 1 or 2 man band self employed subbies, not only without a FAK but sometimes no eye protection or masks either (I had these available on site too).

 

I certainly didn't get involved in applying first aid either, it was a case of saying "here's a sterile swab & new sticking plaster, help youself".

 

I also had an appropriate site insurance policy, thankfully never needed to call on that.

[Mr Punter]

10 hours ago, Nickfromwales said:

Tags on scaffold is an absolute must, as a death from scaffold without a tag will result in a manslaughter charge.  

 

Not so but the tag indicates that the scaffold may have been inspected.  From HSE:

 

"Must I use a tag system on a scaffold? A. Although tag systems are not a legal requirement, the law does require inspection of scaffolding from which a person might fall 2 metres or more and the issue of a report by a competent person, on completion and at least weekly thereafter."

[PeterW]

7 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

While you may not be directly to blame a claims lawyer will pick the easy target. I was up at an IStructE talk.. one thing the presentor made clear was this. Folk know that SE's carry a lot of insurance.. so we are prime targets for an easy claim. You as plot / home owners are also an easy target,  defending any claim is going to be horrid.

Just been back and checked and the old business insurance we had precluded us as acting as either principal designer or principal contractor for the purposes of CDM2015. From memory it added about 30% to the premium to hold those roles.

 

I’m pretty sure that any self build insurance will also remove them - there are certain things you just wouldn’t know as a designer / contractor

[Mr Punter]

All construction work falls under CDM, so if someone comes to decorate your lounge they would be assuming the role of principal designer and principal contractor.  Bollocks really.

[Nickfromwales]

1 hour ago, Mr Punter said:

 

Not so but the tag indicates that the scaffold may have been inspected.  From HSE:

 

"Must I use a tag system on a scaffold? A. Although tag systems are not a legal requirement, the law does require inspection of scaffolding from which a person might fall 2 metres or more and the issue of a report by a competent person, on completion and at least weekly thereafter."

British Gas hired Bristol crown court to reenact this exact scenario as an example to what would / could go wrong. My mate was part of that theatre, and trust me, when HSE turned up to my other builder mates site ( after a labourer fell two floors and fractured his skull / multiple near fatal injuries ) that’s the first thing they hunted for. 
He was dragged over the coals, fined massively, and had to undertake strict site HSE training etc and more. Plus he had mysterious visits to his registered sites for some time after.

 

What is written seems to be contradictory to the HSE’s own actions after such an event. 

[saveasteading]

12 hours ago, PeterW said:

Mexican stand off between the frame installers and the foundation team about who was responsible for the timber ring beam and how it was held down…. Which is kind of fundamental

That is project management. This happens even in the biggest projects, with consultants all over them.

Use a main contractor or manage these issues relentlessly. Of course 'amateur' developers don't know what to look out for.

To be positive, if the contractors had each allowed for this responsibility it would be charged for,  possibly twice.

[saveasteading]

Back to cdm and welfare.

I have had perhaps 6 visits or phone calls from hse over many years. By chance I was on site during 3 of them.

The officers do ask who is site manager and ask to look at the documents. If there aren't good responses to these, then expect a going over. 

But mostly they are pleased to see a well managed site and discuss any potential concerns.

If there is an accident then things are rather different (I am told). Blame will be attached to contractor,  subcontractor or client, or consultants, or all. 

It was clear always that they would rather see a safe project than a load of cut and paste documents. 

[Nickfromwales]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

To be positive, if the contractors had each allowed for this responsibility it would be charged for,  possibly twice.

Positivity is a beautiful thing, but utterly wasted when folk have to start asking “so, who was SUPPOSED to be responsible for that?” when it turns out nobody is, ever was, and nobody bothered to mention it ( until after they were deposit paid and locked into a contract riddled with ‘small-print’ )……
 

MBC TF ( zero affiliation btw ) take full responsibility for this slab / frame coordination, plus it means the frame goes into production when you pay your deposit ( as with any turnkey slab + structure supplier ) thus avoiding huge delays, eg waiting for the slab to be done before the chosen TF company will come and measure it and then go into production. 

 

Typically, the majority of things which are laborious, require huge input, and time, are often in the list of items referred to as ‘by other’.  Fine by me, as it keeps me exceptionally busy all year round. 👌. 

[PeterW]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

That is project management.

It’s not - there is no way I would let a PM choose the fixings for a ring beam..!! It is about understanding of the interface spec and who is accountable where - and that’s down to how the specification and designs are done, which surprisingly is why the PD role is so important. This is why the frame companies end up with as @Nickfromwales called the “by others” lists and that is where the problem occurs as no amount of onsite PM will sort a badly written spec when the shovels hit the ground. 

[Post and beam]

Guys

I am very impressed with the level of input, even though some info disagrees with other bits, Thank you all.

The 'by others' phrase is liberally spread throughout the documents i have been presented with so far. Also the phrase' extra over'. Its this phrase thats starting to make my numbers look less than achievable for the house i have submitted planning for.

[Nickfromwales]

39 minutes ago, Post and beam said:

Guys

I am very impressed with the level of input, even though some info disagrees with other bits, Thank you all.

The 'by others' phrase is liberally spread throughout the documents i have been presented with so far. Also the phrase' extra over'. Its this phrase thats starting to make my numbers look less than achievable for the house i have submitted planning for.

Apologies for my straight-talking nature, but it’s far better to see a big mountain of 💩 coming, vs being stuck up to your neck in it with the ‘exit routes’ all bolted shut.   
Best thing you can do now, is formally request a list of ALL of the contractual omissions from the frame company, broken down into an itemised list. Then look at what it will cost / what you could undertake and reassess the situation.

 

Best for a reality check and regroup. 

[Post and beam]

Thanks Nick. I dont mind straight talking in the slightest by the way.

Regards

keith

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

no way I would let a PM choose the fixings for a ring beam

Quite right. I don't mean a site agent. I mean somebody has to integrate design and suppliers.

That is the client if not clarified elsewhere.

 

I can see why a frame supplier excludes that interface, as it can be badly designed or constructed.

I can also see why some will overcome some difficulties at their own expense, just to avoid aborted visits. * But their quote will allow for that.

 

I think there is a common assumption among self-builders that contractors are avoiding responsibility, when in fact, the client or their agents are not dealing with all issues, mostly through inexperience.

Splitting a project into phases to avoid a main contractor and their management should save a lot of money, but there are risks.

Talking about exclusions and the reasons for them is essential.

 

*I have been there, putting steel up on inferior foundations. Main contractor had no quality control or wish to cooperate. So to find a solution or send workers and cranes home? With a ready solution i would sort it at our cost. For major issues, like foundation bolts pulling out...no.

The end client never knew anything about it.

[Nickfromwales]

16 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

when in fact, the client or their agents are not dealing with all issues, mostly through inexperience.

100%. A major problem occurs when the ‘agents’ look to the client, some who’s balls greatly exceed the size of their brain, and follow their lead.

37 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Splitting a project into phases to avoid a main contractor and their management should save a lot of money, but there are risks.

Only possible if you understand the disciplines required to arrive at each milestone, but much more manageable even if being done with the minimum level of professional support.

[Gus Potter]

On 28/12/2022 at 09:27, PeterW said:

Just been back and checked and the old business insurance we had precluded us as acting as either principal designer or principal contractor for the purposes of CDM2015. From memory it added about 30% to the premium to hold those roles.

Thanks Peter, that is interesting.

 

On my PI I have acting as PD for about 5% of my jobs and it seems to have little impact... I wonder if it was the "Contractor element" that sent it haywire.

 

What I can say is that everyone is struggling to get cover for fire protection design.

 

The insurers are running a mile.. BC have been having major seminars and asking for all sorts.. the material manufactures are pullinng their fire data off the web..

 

In summary I have spent loads of time over the last few months sorting out fire protection..

 

 

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, Gus Potter said:

On my PI I have acting as PD for about 5% of my jobs 

I reckon that the insurer sees no extra risk to them in you doing both SE and PD. Perhaps the risk is reduced, with an interface gone.

I remember 20 years ago paying £20,000 a year for PI as contractor/pd/ 10% designer. Then that halved as insurers entered the lucrative market.

Mostly I think they assume they will fight and avoid any claim. Now it has rocketed because many insurers have dropped PI, due to Grenfell.

 

Re fire design, the bco used to accept good reasoning and risk assessments, but now wants everything to be exactly as proven fire tests. I can see why, but a dodgy test was one of the issues with Grenfell.

[Gus Potter]

3 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I reckon that the insurer sees no extra risk to them in you doing both SE and PD. Perhaps the risk is reduced, with an interface gone.

I remember 20 years ago paying £20,000 a year for PI as contractor/pd/ 10% designer. Then that halved as insurers entered the lucrative market.

Mostly I think they assume they will fight and avoid any claim. Now it has rocketed because many insurers have dropped PI, due to Grenfell.

 

Re fire design, the bco used to accept good reasoning and risk assessments, but now wants everything to be exactly as proven fire tests. I can see why, but a dodgy test was one of the issues with Grenfell.

Yes given the size of contractor you were 20k was not that bad. When I was a Contractor I had about 10- 15 full time staff and paid about 5.0 - 10K a year for full insurance. Full contracts work... the whole shebang.

 

Over the years premiums went up and down.. providers left the market and so on. But so long as you were marked down as an "honest broker" all in the round was ok.

 

Now the Pi Insurance. At the moment fire is a big problem. It is happening in Scotland.. BC are having a major clampdown. English BC will follow .. but the main thing is that SE's are finding it hard to get fire cover.. the manufuacurers are pulling their data sheets big time off the internet...that is all I will say for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

9 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

that is all I will say for now.

 

We don't want to be sued by big companies, or local authorities, or approvals agencies.

 

What are you / others doing re fire cover? Excluding risk in your contracts?

[Gus Potter]

On 31/12/2022 at 11:29, saveasteading said:

What are you / others doing re fire cover? Excluding risk in your contracts?

I think this could develop into a "hot topic"..which will have an impact on BH members.. how much I don't know but there will be some form of cost attached. BC in Scotland are having a big drive.. lots of CPD and seminars. I think this may get picked up on in the rest of the UK if not already. I'm certainly not against this as we need to make our housing / building stock safe.

 

Getting PI cover for fire is let's say.. not easy and it takes a lot of time to understand what cover is being offered by the brokers. While I would like to give lots of particular detail I won't as it is commercially sensitive from my pont of view. I'm in a bit of an odd position in that I often do the SE stuff plus the Architectural side of things. Often (not all the time though)  the SE say's.. fire protection is for the Architect on smaller domestic jobs, even larger projects. The SE says.. I need one hour here, two hours there and so on and leave it up to the Architect to detail it out and thus it falls on their cover.

 

But the way I see things at the moment in terms of risk is (my view may change) this. The designer's risk can be split into two broad categories:

 

1/ You botch the fire design in terms of your design, the building goes on fire.. occupants get killed / injured, the building collapses and kills members of say the Fire / Rescue services or the building starts to come apart at the seams and sets fire to surrounding buildings.

 

The above is what we have been designing for traditionally... but Grenfell changed all of that in that the system of checks and balances fell to bits.. if one person had made a stand.. and been heard / action taken then maybe Grenfell could have been avoided.

 

Now due in part to the Grenfell enquiry light is now being shone into the darker corners.. the way manufacture's have been presenting their test data, the way designers have been interpreting the data and the commercial pressures that are brought upon the local authorities to bow down / approve and not question the "big commercial" interests. I know of one BC officer who a specialist in fire design.. but the funding is not there to allow them to challenge the big builders and so on. This type of herd behavoir leads to bad design.. unsafe design.

 

2/ A good few of the manufacture's have withdrawn data and design guidance. Why you ask.. what is the reason for this? My broker explained to me.. the problem Gus is that now there does not even need to be a fire. A Client can come back to in a couple of years and say.. remember that building you designed.. well we are worried about it and are going to raise an action against you.. that leaves the designer facing big defense costs.. you are trying to defend against a hypothetical scenario.. now that could be hard and expensive if the manufacture's have pulled their data not least.

 

I have figured out an approach that I think is a reasonable balance of risk, everyone will have their own approach. Part of my strategy is to communicate with the Client, other designers and discuss how we are going to design something safe. Have the hard conversation at the concept design stage about who is doing the fire design.. this is like being a Principle designer (PD).. someone needs to coordiante the design and make sure all the different elements are safe when put together in a system.

 

If you do this then while some may sue few will win (hopefully none) as you have acted responsibly and designed well with an understanding of the materials you are using and where you put them and how you interface them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[George]

On 28/12/2022 at 09:56, Mr Punter said:

All construction work falls under CDM, so if someone comes to decorate your lounge they would be assuming the role of principal designer and principal contractor.  Bollocks really.

It does mean that, but it is all about proportionality.

 

Enough decorators fall down stairs and break necks when really they should have had a proper access plan and consideration of COSHH substances. Not using dodgy ladders and so on.

 

That is all pretty sensible and proportionate when you consider a decorating company sending employees out to work. They should be considering these things and recording them appropiately.

 

Where CDM does fall down a bit is when it's a one-man band. Whereas Management of HS regulations has a clause meaning that organisations with fewer than 5 employees don't need to write anything down (although they still need to prove they considered and fulfilled reasonably practicable steps), there is no similar exemption for CDM.

So, while as a client you would want significant construction work to be written down regardless of number of employees, that isn't the case a decoration job. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by George

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

someone needs to coordinate the design and make sure all the different elements are safe when put together in a system.

 

1 hour ago, George said:

It is all about proportionality.

 

The painter is a good example. You can imagine a cash guy who takes on any job, with little equipment and little experience. Not just that, but they send out a lad to do it, without the right equipment.

Compare with the skilled painter with all the right equipment.

 

The good one sends along skilled and experienced workers with the right access equipment and tools.

In 5 minutes they could adapt their risk assessment to show the risks of the job and the equipment to do it.

If you can think it, you can write it.

Standard method statements can be short. In fact they should be short and relevant so that they can be read, discussed and become policy.

 

Proportionality: an example.

My business was supplying the superstructure for a big retail shed, working for a major contractor, now long gone.

I was in the site office with the site manager, just doing our own things.

In walked HSE unannounced. 

He asked the manager what was going on today and any particular risks.

He just pointed at me and deflected the subject.

HSE chatted to me about our role, what was going on today, by what means, and then asked for the relevant part of our documents.

I handed it to him and he flicked through it and said it was perfect: relevant and understandable. (It was about 20 pages and job specific).

Then he went back to the site manager, and asked for the equivalent in his documents.

He pointed at 3 huge lever arches and said 'it is all in there somewhere'.

 

HSE subsequent inspectors have reluctantly suggested I bulk it all out a bit, for effect, but keep the relevance.

 

I never got criticised for anything in the manuals.

 

Moral: write down what is the job and what risks there are. then what you are doing to avoid the risk.

It follows that there won't be an accident anyway, because it has been thought through.

But if there was, any show of care and thought will go a very long way.

 

 

[saveasteading]

On 26/12/2022 at 14:49, PeterW said:

will be project managed by a Potton appointed manager.

You can't expect a series of specialist contractors to bring their own toilets and offices with them, attend to site access and security and supervise the previous contractor.

 

However:  Potton's website says this, and they should have told you with their quote. 

domestic client’s obligations were transferred to the contractor. Or principal contractor, where more than one contractor is working on a project.

 

If there is not a Principal Contractor , then they are The Contractor. So yes, they should sort it.