CDM regulations

[TeeJay]

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

 

For instance..?

 

part of the requirements is the amount of person hours that any build project helps to define if CDM applies.

 

This could potentially mean that long-running West End shows with a single scene change would become notifiable and subject to all the requirements.

 

The issue is that there has been no contact with anybody from the events sector, or theatre, or TV, or film, festival, am-dram, etc until this consultation document.

 

No-one has been declaiming that implementing safety protocols is a bad thing (indeed the ABTT has been championing the am-dram/community/school theatres with the HSE) - but most of us already do the bulk of the paperwork. If the production manager, or other responsible adult, can take the position of accountability and we just alter the paperwork that's one thing. If every build has to then engage a principle designer (to oversee the project, and not the traditional theatre understanding of that job role) who then has to complete what will be essentially duplicate risk assessments, safe systems of work, etc, that's much more of an issue (and why ABTT, PSA et al were shouting, as were most of the large theatres and theatre groups).

Considering the point is to reduce paperwork and bring smaller building sites under the CDM regs, it would be somewhat against the purpose if it actually increases the bureaucracy ...

 

Not certain if this is something that would apply to art installations (I presume so)

[kerry davies]

....most of us already do the bulk of the paperwork.......the point is to reduce paperwork.......it would be somewhat against the purpose if it actually increases the bureaucracy....the production manager can take the position of accountability

I think you have answered your own concerns. If most of us work to the required standards already then anything that eliminates those who don't is worth exploring.

[paulears]

I just can't see this standard being appropriate to many venues. There are so many smaller venues that don't work in the kind of way that this system seems to require. The idea that they will be able to change to a much stricter, professional system is going to be simply ignored. If you look at the kinds of venues that have an unpaid or part time 'manager', and a staff of volunteers, this kind of thing is not workable.

 

Brian is quite right when he says that if they can't do it, they shouldn't be putting on shows, but they do, and always have done. I got sent a risk assessment provided by a venue to a young people's group today - for comment. It's totally un-theatrical, it doesn't cover any of the day to day normal theatrical risks, just the type of thing you'd have in an office. These people don't know, and they won't be aware of the requirement.

 

I do tend to think that theatre and events are nothing like building sites, and the construction industry is very different. You don't find bumbling volunteers and members of the public wandering around a building site.

[TeeJay]

....most of us already do the bulk of the paperwork.......the point is to reduce paperwork.......it would be somewhat against the purpose if it actually increases the bureaucracy....the production manager can take the position of accountability

I think you have answered your own concerns. If most of us work to the required standards already then anything that eliminates those who don't is worth exploring.

 

 

Absolutely - but I would like to confirm that what we do would be acceptable if an event becomes notifiable, and not that we have to then engage a principle designer to fill in their paperwork as well ...

 

As this (potentially) impacts our whole industry, I'd rather be involved in the consultation, make sure that all the positions are understood and make sure that it is implemented in a way that will benefit users. Do note that it isn't confirmed that the PM can be the PD - that's just the position that myself and several others have suggested as a practicable solution

 

Cheers

[kerry davies]

Paul, the arguments about amateur and professional theatre do not apply. CDM will never apply to non-work situations just like HASAWA does not. The civil law duties of care apply to volunteers.

 

It will cause problems for the professional groups without a clue but they will just have to pay you more to take on the PD role and place themselves at your instruction. Not so bad then?

 

TeeJay, JACE has been discussing this for years, as the PSA statement mentions. It is no shock and what ABTT are on about I have no clue. It is formalisation of what we do as good practice, nothing more.

 

The nomination of someone as PD does not suggest a new post to me and it hasn't happened in construction. Names mean little, duties are what matters and if the PM can charge extra for them, then again not so bad.

[Roderick]

I completely fail to see the problem here. The way I understand CDM to work is how we have been doing things for years "in the colonies".

 

It is the duty of the event / concert / theatre / corporate / whatever producer to prepare a risk assessment incorporating all elements of a show. That is something no individual supplier or department can't do because they may look after their own shop, they are not likely to interpret how their work effects others in the same workplace.

Simple example: Corporate dinner - 3PM. Caterers are setting tables and at the same time the PA is being tuned. Spot the problem?

That where you then have a obligation to either provide the caterers staff with earplugs or change the schedule, something neither company can decide on their own.

 

For Opera Australia I designed a risk management system that starts at the design presentation. Any potential issues during bump-in, rehearsal / show and bump-out are discussed then so that the best solution can be found. You don't find the right solutions halfway through rehearsals without upsetting someone so do it early.

Spend the time upfront because that'll safe you time when you hit the stage proper - and it will most likely save you money in less lost time.

 

What I find amazing is that when there is a new twirly-whirly piece of lighting equipment that needs 2 specialist technicians on call 24/7 nobody blinks an eye.

Put anything forward with the word 'risk' or 'safety' and it seems the end is neigh. What is so bad about trying to keep people in a job? How many stagehands in a wheelchair do you know? Or stage managers? Or sound operators? Follow-spot operators? Riggers?

[TeeJay]

My concern is that this is something that affects the industry in which I work and which that industry has no direct representation.

 

I think respondents on this thread have been a little too quick to go 'but health and safety is a good thing' (it is), 'we already do all this' (good), and so on.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying that the CDM regs don't contain good things - but if they are going to be implemented, lets do what we can to ensure that they are implemented well and in a way that will allow for mass adoption, without haven't to come back in a few years because, of all things, a theatre or TV studio is not a building site.

[azlan]

My concern is that this is something that affects the industry in which I work and which that industry has no direct representation.

 

I think respondents on this thread have been a little too quick to go 'but health and safety is a good thing' (it is), 'we already do all this' (good), and so on.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying that the CDM regs don't contain good things - but if they are going to be implemented, lets do what we can to ensure that they are implemented well and in a way that will allow for mass adoption, without haven't to come back in a few years because, of all things, a theatre or TV studio is not a building site.

 

no? I would say that an environment in which big lumps of structural steelwork, timbers and electrical supplies are being installed probably counts as a construction site

[J Pearce]

I spent a portion of the weekend on a festival site during build up, and it looked rather like a building site. Fork lifts, deliveries, differently skilled trades working on the same site, half finished structures etc. In this instance it was very well managed, though it was easy to see how wrong it could go with only a few steps in the wrong direction (both figuratively and literally!).

 

 

Now obviously a major festival build up is a different scale to positioning a few masking flats and adding two profiles to LX3 in a small black box space, but it is important that we find a way to draw the line between a small turnaround and a full scale construction.

 

If I take my small turnaround but add a steeldeck structure upstage that needs bracing and then electrics adding for practicals, is this now within the scope of CDM? What if I add a ground support system? Where is that line?

 

I've worked on theatre fitups that had as many hazards as a building site, if not more, and a CDM approach would have been a valid way of assessing and controlling these. Even large scale rep productions can have major fitups that require careful planning and interworking of contractors who aren't otherwise interlinked. For these perhaps the Production Manager is the best person to take the CDM lead, but is there potential for a new role of H&S manager.

 

As many have suggested it is vital we engage with HSE, show them what we do well, what we could do better and show them how we think it would work best (and I mean best, not easiest) within the context of what we do.

[kerry davies]

My concern is that this is something that affects the industry in which I work and which that industry has no direct representation.

Sorry TeeJay, I may have been guilty of jargonspeak.

I wrote earlier that JACE has been discussing this for years. On that Joint Advisory Committee for Entertainment at the HSE the members include ABTT, BECTU, PSA, NOEA, SOLTMA among many others and some group headed by Uncle Tom Cobbley under which Total, Star the NEC, Wembley and Earls Court/Olympia and others send reps.

 

There is no other quasi-governmental group that has more industry representation than JACE, anyone can be invited and often is/are. All members have direct access to the HSE officers directly involved. Even I, a lowly serf, had the mobile numbers and personal e-mails of those HSE guys.

 

The consultation is now ended so basically we are discussing long-since spilt milk. We have had our say and, like any representative measure like elections, it is a case of waiting for a result.

That result might well be "nothing happening here, move along please." It may well be "If Rihanna, Robbie and Rockness can do it so can ROH."

 

E2A and before anyone says anything I know RoH already works to CDM levels of safety supervision.

[Roderick]

If I take my small turnaround but add a steeldeck structure upstage that needs bracing and then electrics adding for practicals, is this now within the scope of CDM? What if I add a ground support system? Where is that line?

Jon, I don't think there should be a line, that would only confuse matters.

It is like saying that you only need circuit breakers in supplies over 10A. Where the difference comes in is the level of documentation required, that will be different between a festival site and a small turnaround venue. If we stay with electricity, do you need 10A/1Ø or 400A/3Ø? Still the same process only at a different scale.

[J Pearce]

I'm inclined to agree, but in that case the implementation of CDM needs the flexibility to say that one person can fulfil all roles, as in a small arts centre where the one full time tech might well do pretty much everything; while also allowing for the huge scale builds of a large festival or ROH sized shows.

 

(It may well do, properly reading up on CDM is one of my summer projects)

[sjb88]

I'm a bit late to the party... but I'm a civil engineer and have experience of both CDM and theatre (albeit am-dram / student level stuff) so it caught my eye.

 

People have talked about requiring hi-vis and hard hats for scene changes - I think we have established that this is unlikely but it might still have an effect on the way sets are designed for scene changes etc to take place. Designers are required under CDM to reduce all forseeable risks in use of the thing they have designed. If putting the set up to begin with is "construction" under CDM then doing a scene change is "using" it. Due to CDM it is now the norm for architects to request fall arrest anchors, work positioning systems etc to mitigate against falls from height during cleaning a roof, to ensure MEWP access for things which may need to be maintained high up, and to make sure there are no fragile / non-structural surfaces for people to step or fall on etc. CDM does not cover how the maintenance is actually done, just that the thing has to be designed in such a way that it can be done as safely as possible. So one example might be that you couldn't have a set or lighting rig which for routine maintenance would require perching at the top of a ladder. It sounds a little far fetched but action from HSE enforcement officers and judges who don't appreciate theatre might cause it to creep that way?

 

Also, arguably more interesting, there's the very broad definition of "designer" under CDM. Basically, anybody who has any influence on the design of the thing that's being built is a designer and has designer duties. What's interesting to me is you don't have to be a technician to be a designer - if a director asks the production team to remove a handrail from the set so an actor is standing in front of a 10ft drop then the director has attracted designer responsibilities and could now be one of the people up for prosecution if the actor falls off and breaks their neck. I think the HSE is not afraid to prosecute multiple parties for the same incident under CDM so they could have the director for requesting the change, the set designer and SM for agreeing to it, and the guys actually doing the work (as contractor) for building something that's not safe. I'm not sure how artistic considerations will weigh into it (in the director's defence they could probably show that they consider the risk to be manageable through proper rehearsal etc).