CDM regulations

[the kid]

 

 

From what I can tell, you are basically right, all CDM would mean is that there is a defined lead contractor and designer who is in charge of making sure all contractors and sub contractors (so in a theatre, potentially the venue, venue technicians, touring crew, rigging company, catering, talent, hire companies, electricians etc..) are all working to the same acceptable standards and following common method statements and risk assessments rather than leaving each individual supplier to look after their own h&s

 

IS that not a PM job or venue manager style job to ensure that everyone plays their part in being safe?

[richard]

One of the questions being asked by the "official" response is how theatre is meant to provide a "lead designer" and whether theatres will need to employ someone to fulfil this role. As has already been implied I think there should already be someone doing this - even if not in name. There should always be a single person co-ordinating what happens on/around the stage and usually this would be the PM. The other area that I would hope this could address is the issue of "designers" appreciating their role in safety - ie the need for a lighting designer to accept that a light shouldn't be rigged where it can't be "safely" focussed and maintained - all too often have I seen/had to over-reach or struggle to reach a lamp which is in a silly place!

[azlan]

IS that not a PM job or venue manager style job to ensure that everyone plays their part in being safe?

 

Yes, but this formalises the responsibility of the person.

 

Although a lot of our industry is already doing this, as with the construction industry, it probably slips through the net a lot at the lower end of the market. For example, having a marquee with a DJ supplying a bunch of lighting and pa could technically fall under the regs, but it seems unlikely that such an arrangement would be in place at the moment.

 

Something else to note is that the document suggests that none commercial contractors would be covered by the legislation, so even amdram's and village fetes will be covered if they meet the criteria of having two or more 'contractors or sub contractors'

[sleah]

village fetes will be covered if they meet the criteria of having two or more 'contractors or sub contractors'

 

Having just been involved with something similar to the above, supplying PA....

One event in a public park had us in one area doing our PA thing, another had a marquee with a live bands stage, other areas were stall holders with gazeebos, a council worker was running power (fixed not generator) - you get the picture.

Are we saying that effectively the event organiser (in this case a private individual as opposed to council) would be responsible for checking the safe working practice of all who were doing anything that would require risk assessment, such as us with PA, marquee guys, stall holders in addition to us all being responsible for our own little bits?

 

To be honest, I assumed that's how it worked anyway!

[Andrew Edwards]

I was also mulling over a few scenarios like the one Simon mentions, along with a few Amdram ones.

 

I'm not convinced that all event Organisers or amdram PMs/Directors will have sound and sufficient knowledge of ALL safety aspects of the event/show.

[sleah]

I'm not convinced that all event Organisers or amdram PMs/Directors will have sound and sufficient knowledge of ALL safety aspects of the event/show.

 

That was also in my head too. In my example above the organiser was stumped for a moment when I said running a power cable across a public access area (on grass) wasn't going to happen. I know it can be done, but we were not geared up to do it at the time. They had re-arranged everything which I didn't find out about until arriving on site... we solved it in the end and didn't need to even try to run power in silly places :)

[smalljoshua]

Arguably, we already do pretty much everything that's required in the pro world.

 

It's fairly typical for us to have a single point of contact on site, whom we communicate all our risk mitigation paperwork with. This person then ensures that our activities wont endanger other people and that we have sufficiently reduced risk for the activities we're undertaking.

 

In Am-Dram though, it's anyone's guess. A typical local company will have: 1 guy doing set and lights, professional and employed who does it for all the Am-Drams in the city. A volunteer sound guy and volunteer stage crew/props/costume/spot ops. The SM is voluntary too, does this person then become responsible for providing written documentation for all the "subcontractors" on site?

 

Again, in places with good practice, people are already having a sit down with the LD, SM, Director, Sound etc to talk about the get-in/tech and make sure everything will be safe. There's not such an onus on recording that information though.

 

I fear that it may be portrayed as "meddling" by people who don't quite understand the concept that this is just a formalisation of common sense and anything which means people actually spend some time thinking about the risks and managing them is a good thing IMO.

 

Josh

[Brian]

I'm not convinced that all event Organisers or amdram PMs/Directors will have sound and sufficient knowledge of ALL safety aspects of the event/show.

 

Then they shouldn't be doing it.

 

It's not acceptable for people further down the chain not to know what they are doing so why should it be any different at the top. As you move into more specialised areas, say rigging, the detailed knowledge you need goes up whilst your knowledge of other areas, say sound, goes down. As you move up the chain of command, the detailed knowledge you need goes down but you need more general knowledge.

[richard]

Agreed - it's also worth remembering that a good 'lead designer' doesn't need to have an intricate knowledge of all areas of work, they just need to be able to use a common sense approach to ensure that the people doing the various tasks are competent to do them, and that suitable risk assesments and method statements have been completed.

 

If the person responsible for the safety of an event doesn't feel confident in managing the areas, then this shows that they need to get suitable external advice. If the event doesn't have a person responsible for the safety of it then that shows there is a problem - CDM or no CDM!

[azlan]

I fear that it may be portrayed as "meddling" by people who don't quite understand the concept that this is just a formalisation of common sense and anything which means people actually spend some time thinking about the risks and managing them is a good thing IMO.

 

In the preamble of the document, the HSE take that point as one of the factors for the re-write, they are trying to simplify the act as far as possible to make sure that it is followed and not ignored, especially by smaller organization's.

 

In the case 9 the village fete etc. There is no need for the event organiser to be the responsible person. Someone like the local scout master, who has experience mitigating risk could easily be appointed.

 

Likewise I can't see anything saying that the often used process of each contractor submitting their own method statements and risk assessments to a single point of contact cannot still be followed. It just means that poiMr of contact is taking legal liability.

[Andrew Edwards]

I'm not convinced that all event Organisers or amdram PMs/Directors will have sound and sufficient knowledge of ALL safety aspects of the event/show.

 

Then they shouldn't be doing it.

 

 

I heartily agree Brian.

[kerry davies]

Can I recommend that everyone reads the PSA response before we go much further? It explains "our" objections which are not about safety but costs of implementation.

 

It may help to skim through the Community Events Guide (wot I wrote) and the Cabinet Office guide down in the BR Library. Far from perfect but a halfway house for amateur and small events on the road to CDM (Azlan, your "scoutmaster" is in there somewhere). My own guide is over 7 years old which shows that CDM is nothing new and that we have been working to roughly the same principles for 20 years.

 

All that CDM will do for most is to reinforce the importance of an Event Manual which should already contain 99% of what CDM asks for; traffic, scheduling, site design, safety and insurance, qualifications, licences and tickets, emergency plans etc etc. The difference being that an event manual will need to be made and one person will be the "signatory" as PD/CDMC.

 

Objecting on grounds of added bureaucracy is fine, claiming that we "don't do" boots and barriers is not helpful and is almost certainly shooting oneself in the flip-flops.

[chelgrian]

 

From what I can tell, you are basically right, all CDM would mean is that there is a defined lead contractor and designer who is in charge of making sure all contractors and sub contractors (so in a theatre, potentially the venue, venue technicians, touring crew, rigging company, catering, talent, hire companies, electricians etc..) are all working to the same acceptable standards and following common method statements and risk assessments rather than leaving each individual supplier to look after their own h&s

 

Having read the HSE document it could have some probably unintended consequences in making certain projects notifiable which are currently not.

[Jivemaster]

The only real way to "avoid" CDM is to have a provably better system already in place and being used.

[Brian]

Having read the HSE document it could have some probably unintended consequences in making certain projects notifiable which are currently not.

 

For instance..?