Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 2
CDM 2007
The Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2007
Effective – 6 April 2007 and structured into five parts:
Part 1 – Introduction
(regulations 1 to 3);
Part 2 – General duties applying to construction work
(regulations 4 to 13);
Part 3 – Additional duties where a project is notifiable
(regulations 14 to 24);
Part 4 – Health and safety on construction sites CDM – is it working?
(regulations 25 to 44); and
Part 5 – General
(regulations 45 to 48).
5 6
1
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) CDM Duty Holders
CDM 2007 recognises a number of duty holders, each
having duties and responsibilities under the regulations,
It was stated that the aim of CDM 2007 is to reduce
namely:
construction accidents and ill health by:
being flexible and accommodating the wide range of contractual The Client
arrangements to be found in the construction industry;
Designers
emphasising the need to plan and manage work rather than the
bureaucracy associated with it; CDM Coordinator – for Notifiable projects
emphasising the communication and co-co-ordination advantages of duty
holders working in integrated teams; and Principal Contractor– for Notifiable projects
7 8
9 10
11 12
2
CDM 2007 – Client’s duties - Does CDM 2007 work for Clients?
Clients involvedCompetence
in notifiable projects have additional More burdens and responsibilities
requirements placed upon them and Clients cannot
Criminal Liability
appoint anyone to “manage, design or construct”
construct”
anything unless they are competent or under Exposure to prosecution
competent supervision. Clients are required to
establish the competence of appointees, and also to
ensure their own competence prior to accepting any Clients should be provided with better advice relating
appointment. to the options available
May intentionally or unwittingly take on role of
designers or contractors
13 14
Clients DON’
DON’T have to CDM 2007 – Designer’s
•
duties
Plan or manage construction projects themselves
Specify how work must de done, unless they have Designers have always had liability for the projects that
the relevant expertise they deliver, under CDM they are exposed to criminal
liability and a number of prosecutions have arisen for
Provide welfare facilities for contractors
failings under CDM 2007, including:
Check Designer’s work to ensure their compliance The Taylor Young Partnership
Inspect the site or supervise construction Prosecution of Neil Vesma
Employ third party advisors to monitor H&S These were cases brought upon technicalities – for failures
standards to fulfil a duty under the CDM Regulations – in both cases
no one was injured.
15 16
3
The European Challenge to CDM European Court of Justice Judgement C-
2007 512/08 Nussbaumer
The first challenge to CDM2007 is a recent case heard in
the Italian Courts which concerns a criminal prosecution
brought against MARTHA NUSSBAUMER for failure to
comply with the local construction regulations.
The European Directive –
treatment of domestic clients The court sought a ruling from the European Court of
Justice and a ruling was delivered on the 7th October
UK derogation 2010 which stated that where a number of undertakings
for domestic clients are present on a construction site, the European Union
law requires that a safety coordinator be appointed and
that a safety plan be drawn up when there are particular
risks.
19 20
23 24
4
Previous High Profile Cases Previous High Profile Cases
Hatfield Rail
Crash
4 Dead
25 26
27 28
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings convicted of first Construction giant fined £160k after man
corporate manslaughter charge under new Act falls to his death
(15/02/2011) Date: 23 September 2010
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has today become the first company to be convicted of the new offence of corporate A major construction firm has been fined £160,000 after a
manslaughter.
Alex Wright was 27-years-old when he died on 5 September 2008. He was a geologist for Cotswold Geotechnical
labourer fell to his death while building Premier League side
Holdings and was investigating soil conditions in a deep trench on a development plot in Stroud when it collapsed and Everton FC's new training academy.
killed him. Kier North West, part of the Kier group which has an annual
The CPS told the court that Mr Wright was left working alone in the 3.5 metre-deep trench to 'finish-up' when the turnover of more than £2.4bn, was prosecuted by the Health
company director left for the day. The two people who owned the development plot decided to stay at the site as they
knew Mr Wright was working alone in the trench. About 15 minutes later they heard a muffled noise and then a shout and Safety Executive after the incident on 27 February
for help. 2007.
While one of the plot-owners called the emergency services, the other one ran to the trench where he saw that a Mr Davis remained in a coma for three months before he
surge of soil had fallen in and buried Mr Wright up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the
soil to enable Mr Wright to breathe. At that point, more earth fell so quickly into the pit that it covered Mr Wright
died.
completely and, despite the plot owners best efforts, Mr Wright died of traumatic asphyxiation. Liverpool Crown Court heard that a rubbish chute had been
The prosecution's case was that Mr Wright was working in a dangerous trench because Cotswold Geotechnical attached to a temporary guardrail at the window frame,
Holdings' systems had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect him from working in that way. leading to a skip below. Kier North West's site management
There was no person in the dock at Winchester Crown Court during the three-week trial as it is the company, rather
than an individual, which is charged with corporate manslaughter. team had failed to ensure that the guardrail could withstand
The case was investigated by Gloucestershire Constabulary and supported by the Health and Safety Executive. the weight of the chute and materials being thrown down it.
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (CGH)was fined £385,000 on 17 February. The company has been given 10 The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of
years to pay the fine. It is the first trial and conviction of a corporate body under the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act that came into force in 2008.
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to
ensure the safety of workers. Kier North West was ordered
to pay £43,993 costs in addition to the fine.
29 30