Example Construction Essay

Example Construction Essay
Theproposed changes to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994aim to simplify the clarify the existing regulations; make the currentregulations more flexible and compatible with procurement requirements; placethe emphasis on the management of health and safety risk rather than creatingpaperwork and to strengthen the co-ordination and co-operation betweendesigners and contractors. The initial Act wasintroduced with a view to setting a safety standard because of the largeaccident record prior to its introduction. The HSC produced a consultation paper explaining the proposed changes on 31 March 2005 with the consultation open until 29 July 2005, though there has beenan extension to receive response documents to 31 August 2005, as many were notsubmitted in time by the time of the consultation on 29 July 2005. The Regulationsare expected to come into force in October 2006.
TheCDM Regulations were made under section 15 of the Health and Safety at Worketc. Act 1974, the principal Act dealing with securing the health and safety ofpeople at work and those whose health and safety could be affected by workactivities. The regulations came into force on 31 March 1995, and implementedprovisions of European Directive No. 89/654/EEC, Temporary orMobile Construction Sites Directive, which specifies a health and safety plan to beadhered to by five key parties to be involved in the Regulations whenundertaking a project. These are the employer, planning supervisor,consultant, principal contractor and sub contractors and self-employed persons. The previous approachwas statutory, with a view to avoiding unsafe situations.

Underregulation 6, the client or the developer must appoint a planning supervisorand a principal contractor.The planning supervisor must notify the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) aboutthe project; fulfil specific requirements regarding design and ensure that thehealth and safety plan complies with the requirements (Regulations 14 &15). The consultant (or designer) has a duty to design to minimise risks inaccordance with health and safety legislation. The principal contractor has toco-ordinate all contractors to ensure compliance with the health and safetyplan. Contractors and self-employed persons have to co-operate with theprincipal contractor, and to advise of any risks connected with their work.

TheCDM Regulations 1994 apply to construction work lasting for more than 30 daysor involving more than 500 person days of work; construction work involvingfive or more people on site at any one time; design risk related toconstruction and demolition work.

Priorto the introduction of the CDM Regulations 1994, the accident statistics were100 fatal accidents annually in the late 1980s. By 1994, the annual total offatal accidents was reduced to 75, and thereafter, from 1994 to 2004 to between47 and 73, and furthermore for injuries lasting more than three days, theannual total was 17,177 in 1989/1990, which reduced to 8162 in 2003/2004. However, critics ofthe Regulations referred to the possibility that this may be influenced by areduction in the amount of construction activity rather than purely as a resultof implementation of the CDM Regulations alone.

There were inconsistencies in case law; it was considered that a subcontractor has the duty to warn contractor of a design defect for which another party was responsible and scope of implied term as to skill and care in performing contract owed by sub contractor to contractor. In the Court of Appeal case of McCook v Lobo in which an employee was injured on a construction site falling from a ladder, it was decided that although the site owner had breached the CDM Regulations 1994 by failing to prepare a health and safety plan in advance of the commencement of the building work, it was considered that it was unlikely that such a plan would cover the securing of ladders and therefore could not be considered as having caused the injuries.

In 2002 the construction DiscussionDocument (DD) formally recognised that there was a need for changes with regardto the industry's health and safety performance, and the ensuing discussionsled to the conclusion that although the principles underpinning the CDM Regulationswere accepted, the methods adopted to implement the CDM Regulations oftenresulted in the principles being obscured beneath layers of bureaucracy andpaperwork.

Therefore, the HSC concluded that the CDMRegulations needed to be revised by refocusing attention on effective, butpractical, planning and management of construction projects. The Healthand Safety Commission launched a 4 month consultation on its proposals toreplace both the current Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994and the Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 with a singleset of Regulations. Adraft set of amended CDM Regulations has been drafted together with a draft ofrevisions to the Approved Code of Practice by the HSC andthe Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC). The new CDM Regulationswere made available for comment in the hope that a set of Regulations can beformed that properly address the industry's concerns in relation to health andsafety and the inadequacies of the current Regulations.

The problemswith the current Regulations also were argued to include the fact that many ofthe intended benefits were not being fully realized, contributed to by thedifficulty in implementing radical change into the construction industry andthe financial implications of full CDM compliance, together with the structureof the regulations themselves, the role of the planning supervisor being unsatisfactoryas not being part of the core contraction team. The complexity of theregulations themselves was a problem despite the consensus regarding the underlyingethos remaining valid. Theproposed CDM Regulations are intended to be simpler and to remove anyuncertainty regarding the nature of the duties imposed. They are alsostructured differently, setting out precisely what is expected of each dutyholder.

Example Construction Essay 7.5 of 10 on the basis of 1512 Review.