Just recd an email from architect saying I need a Principal Designer and a Principal Contractor for my project

[Caroline]

The architect says:

 

"as you are probably aware recent changes to the Building Regulations require you as the client to appoint both a Principal Designer and a Principal Contractor for the project (see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design-and-building-work-meeting-building-requirements#domestic-clients-duties for further information in this regard). Whilst we have been acting in the role of Principal Designer for the purposes of planning, managing, monitoring and co-ordinating matters related to the detailed design (RIBA Stage 4) phase of this project, we will not be involved in the construction phase and therefore cannot continue in this role."

 

This project is our third, we previously dealt with all the CDM requirements e.g. H&S/sub-contractors welfare facilities etc.  I wasn't aware there had been recent changes.  Can we, as self builders and the client, also be the principal designer/contractor?  We propose sub-contracting out all of the building work.

 

Thank you.

[Conor]

You set yourself as both client, principle designer and possibly contractor as well. However, if you are getting a builder in to organise more than a single piece of work, they should be the principle contractor at the time they are working. We did it that way, the off guy was principle contractor until he left, then I assumed the responsibility as I was directly contracting people in.

 

(CDM 2015, Northern Ireland)

 

 

[nod]

As above 

Its a bit like Cadburys telling us that we all need to each more chocolate 

[saveasteading]

29 minutes ago, Conor said:

You set yourself as both client, principle designer and possibly contractor as well.

Manage it well so that there are no accidents and you won't get in trouble.

Assuming that contractors are doing it safely is not enough. You must stay in touch and stop silly things.

 

4 minutes ago, nod said:

Its a bit like Cadburys telling us that we all need to each more chocolate 

Fortunately  you don't have to buy Cadbury's and thefore....no I can't continue the analogy.

[kandgmitchell]

This is about competancy for designing building regulation compliant work rather than CDM. The new Building Safety Act requires those designing work to be competant. This is really to try and prevent another Grenfell situation and to make sure complex buildings are designed by those who understand them. 

 

This however is a house. I presume your architect has done the building regulation drawings and got approval? If so then the design work is done and they were the competant designer. Since you have done two self-builds before I would suggest that you are competant to organise the build using competant contractors. At the end of the job your BCO will ask you to sign a form confirming who were the competant persons - the architect was the designer and you were the contractor. Ultimately unless the whole thing collapses around your ears no-one will be interested in any of this after 12 months.

 

Recent experience suggests that unless you are building an 18 storey block of flats, life is going on very much like it was just with more paperwork to sign.

[joe90]

13 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

This is really to try and prevent another Grenfell situation

I feel strongly about the Grenfell situation, I don’t believe it was about principle designers it was about producers being allowed (wrongly) to make up their own safety conclusions. BCO.s and building regs should be controlling this IMO.

Edited Friday at 18:09 by joe90

[nod]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

Manage it well so that there are no accidents and you won't get in trouble.

Assuming that contractors are doing it safely is not enough. You must stay in touch and stop silly things.

 

Fortunately  you don't have to buy Cadbury's and thefore....no I can't continue the analogy.

Fortunately 

You don’t have to employ a principle contractor Or designer You can be a self builder and not be shackled to anyone 

[PNAmble]

We had a similar email from our architect once we sacked the idiot. they are covering their arses and trying to con you into paying for them during build.   Ours wanted to install roof safety systems and a A1 fire protection system as in his view it protected his role as principle designer. 

[LnP]

Since you will be self managing, you will be the Principal Contractor. There’s a nice summary what that means in the examples section towards the bottom of this guidance from the Self Build Portal. You’re responsible for the matters in Part 4 of CDM, which shouldn’t be difficult for you as you’ve managed building sites before. 
 

Regarding the Principal Designer role, it’s nice that your architect agrees that they have been responsible for that. Once the construction phase starts, the PD’s work is mostly done. The PD now just has to hand over the H&S file to the PC. Ask them for it.

 

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> I feel strongly about the Grenfell situation

 

Yeah agree, Peter Apps's book is good btw.

 

I'm not convinced that the CDM regs will stop Grenfell-style shenanigans though.

[Caroline]

Thank you everyone.  Your comments are invaluable and I suppose I was just doubting myself.  We live on site and will be managing the sub-contractors on a day to day basis, so will take on role of Principal Contractor, or not as we are self builders.  Building control has been passed and ironically our building control officer (private company) is the same person who did our BC on our last project.  We had our structural engineer's drawings double checked by a second SE as we had queries on original, there is underpinning to existing steels involved and very deep 2.2m foundations on one part due to trees that were removed 15m away!  Anyway, wish us luck and hoping to be done in 12 months

[DevilDamo]

> > > I'm not convinced that the CDM regs will stop Grenfell-style shenanigans though.

 

This isn’t anything to do with the CDM regulations.

[Redbeard]

10 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

 

This isn’t anything to do with the CDM regulations.

 

Yes. I can't help feeling that clarity would have been helped if they had used something like 'Lead Designer (BSA)' and 'Lead Contractor (BSA)' (no, not the Birmingham Small Arms  BSA!) to avoid confusion between BSA/B Regs and CDM.

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

2.2m foundations on one part due to trees that were removed 15m away

That sounds onerous. The thirstiest tree in heavy clay. Some designers make the mistake of designing for the closest foundation and applying it all round. Are yours shallower further from the former trees?

How long ago were they removed and how mature?

[Mike]

21 hours ago, Caroline said:

Can we, as self builders and the client, also be the principal designer/contractor?

Yes, for the avoidance of doubt if you, as the client, don't appoint anyone, then the legal responsibility for both roles is all yours :)

[Caroline]

On 02/11/2024 at 14:31, saveasteading said:

That sounds onerous. The thirstiest tree in heavy clay. Some designers make the mistake of designing for the closest foundation and applying it all round. Are yours shallower further from the former trees?

How long ago were they removed and how mature?

Yes they are shallower, going from 2.2m to 1.5m then to 1m.  They were removed around a year ago, this is from the report:

 

There are a number of trees along the southern side of the barn which whilst not very large do have an effect on the foundation depth required. For example the Wych Elms (assuming they are removed*) require a foundation depth of 2.2m there is an oak tree to on the opposite side of the track this requires a foundation depth of 1.75m. *as a tree grows it removes moisture from the soil as it does so it shrinks, when a tree is removed the soil will expand as it returns to its natural moisture content. Both Wych Elms and Oak have high water demand so have a significant impact on foundation depth.

 

 

[saveasteading]

What they are saying is almost correct. These depths of foundations are for the amount of water that a mature tree will suck from the ground. So we assume that the trees will continue to maturity. If these were immature then the effect is less.

How much less, I don't think is known. 

Thus your depths are on the safe side.

 

1 hour ago, Caroline said:

(assuming they are removed*

But the depth stated us as if they are retained. 

And there has been one winter of recovery.

It's not for me to say more and I was mainly checking it wasn't all to the most extreme  depth.