Christian McCale reviews the debate over the need for a new approved code of practice for the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Above: Christian McCale is project director of CDM specialist Innov8 At its meeting towards the end of 2015, the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) reported that the majority of its members thought that the latest Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM 2015) did not require an approved code of practice (ACOP). The final decision on whether or not an ACOP will be produced will be made by the board of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). However, it now seems likely that it will follow CONIAC’s recommendation that the case for an ACOP has not been made. This potential outcome has generated further debate and views have been expressed on both sides of the argument. When CDM 2015 was introduced in April 2015, the HSE produced a guidance document, L153, to accompany the new regulations, but this was not as comprehensive as an ACOP. In addition, a number of other of organisations, such as the Construction Industry Training Board, published their own information for principal designers, designers, contractors, and other roles included in the new legislation. At the time it was understood that an ACOP was still under consideration and the general perception was that, as with the old ACOP, by complying with its instructions, a duty holder would be able to demonstrate that it had done enough to comply with CDM 2015. However, it now appears that this initial view of the need for an ACOP has changed. In fact, it seems that the foundations of what we are now seeing go back much further than the introduction of CDM 2015, and essentially are a consequence of the HSE review of ACOPs that was undertaken after the Lofstedt Review of health and safety regulations in 2012. This introduced a set of principles for producing future ACOPs that were designed to provide users with confidence in how to comply with a specific law or regulation. Importantly this review also required that any new ACOPs should be shown to add value, be considerably shorter and be ‘signposting’ in nature – and it is against these measures that the need for a new CDM ACOP is now being determined. It was as part of this consultation process that CONIAC reported that the majority of its members thought that the CDM regulations were already well established and that an ACOP would not add any value. It added that an ACOP would not meet the needs of SMEs, and would be confusing for smaller duty holders and domestic clients.  In addition, it was thought that the general inflexibility of an ACOP could block progress because the lengthy process associated with any amendments would not respond quickly enough to changes in practice and innovation as they became available. In response to these arguments, the main views put forward by members in favour of an ACOP largely reflected its special legal status. This allows concerns to be raised without fear of victimisation, reinforces messages about employer duties and provides the only true and definitive benchmark for compliance. However, in its conclusion, CONIAC refuted these points by pointing out that with the huge range in size and nature of construction projects carried out, a single, short signposting ACOP would be unlikely to bring greater certainty to compliance and the management and control of risks than is provided by L153. Furthermore it claimed that developing a number of separate ACOPs for sub sectors would only serve to duplicate, confuse and proliferate guidance. Until the HSE makes a final decision, this is where matters currently stand, but it may be worth reflecting that when CDM 2015 was introduced, part of the rationale was to eliminate previous confusion and clarify precisely when CDM is applicable, particularly in relation to the domestic market. As a result, the current regulations now capture all construction activities and have de-coupled the duties required of a CDM co-ordinator and principal contractor from when a project is notified.  This means that the CDM regulations are now required to be understood by a greater number of people to ensure compliance for all types of construction activities. As a result, there are many who would say that there has never been a greater need for sub sector guidance and the clarification of the regulations to be provided. CONIAC did acknowledge this position in its report by highlighting those views that mentioned the need for additional Q&As issued for inspectors as an addition to L153, having more additional FAQs on the HSE website, and producing proportionate guidance by industry sectors without the involvement of the HSE to contextualise what is necessary to comply with duties within the sector depending on the size of the business or project. Members also referred to some new consolidation of examples included in the 2007 ACOP into case studies. As well as best practice, the lack of an ACOP also poses questions of competence. The previous ACOP had a series of questions which specifically targeted the competency needed to undertake a CDM role. This has now changed, with the new regulations requiring individuals/organisations to have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and capability to undertake a role. In practice this can be a very grey area and until test cases emerge, the lack of an ACOP offering examples or a more defined application means the task of assessing who to employ for a specific task is very difficult and open to interpretation, only really making reference to PAS91 and Safety Systems in Procurement (SSIP). As an example, the Contractors Health & Safety Assessment Scheme (CHAS) offers accreditation to designers and contractors and formerly CDM co-ordinators.  When submitting to CHAS now, there is a new category for accreditation to principal designers; so if an individual or organisation has CHAS accreditation as a designer, are they competent to be a principal designer? Overall, there would certainly appear to be a case for having greater

Khalid Al Falih Khalid Al Falih, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister and chairman of the country’s state energy giant, said the government will make sovereign decisions on production and capacity even after a public offering of Saudi Aramco. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of his first Opec meeting in Vienna, Mr Al Falih said any minority investor would be buying into the relationship between the Saudi government and the world’s largest oil producer. More On this topic IN Oil & Gas “Part of this is that the government makes decisions on production and capacity,” said Mr Al Falih, adding that it would be up to the company to demonstrate to investors the benefits of the arrangement. “It’s a win-win policy and strategy that the kingdom has adopted [and] Aramco has benefited from it. Investors will have to accept this reality,” he said. The IPO of fewer than 5 per cent of Saudi Aramco, the country’s largest cash cow and one of its biggest employers, comes as part of a broader overhaul of the kingdom’s economy led by the powerful deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. He has said the IPO, which is at the core of a strategy to diversify away from oil, could value the entity at $2tn. The announcement earlier this year has whet the appetite of international bankers, investors, lawyers and consultants, but placed the global energy major under the microscope. Mr Al Falih said the offering by the parent company, set for 2018, would need to surmount many obstacles because of how entwined the company was with the government. The taxation and accounting of Aramco would require “extensive rewiring”, Mr Falih said. Projects undertaken on behalf of the government rather than for the commercial entity would have to be “delineated”. Saudi Aramco began as an oil explorer and producer that not only branched out into refining and petrochemicals but has also been called on by the state to build schools, stadiums and other infrastructure. Prince Mohammed said last month an IPO would give Saudi Aramco more independence from government oil policy. An elected board, he said, would be able to make its own decisions. Industry analysts have questioned how an entity that is deeply involved in the activities of the state could also ensure that it was acting in the best interests of minority shareholders at the same time. Mr Falih said the public offering had multiple objectives: to showcase Saudi Aramco and make it a participant in global capital markets, and to enable it to expand internationally. “Another aspect is to remove this notion that Saudi Aramco is not transparent,” he added, citing the company’s international governance and accounting standards and compliance practices. The structure of an IPO or where it would be listed are among the key issues that remain undecided. Proceeds and dividends from the offering, Mr Falih said, would be invested by the country’s sovereign wealth fund into non-oil assets. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of oil, relies on its hydrocarbon riches for more than 90 per cent of its government revenues. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Source link

Manchester City Council will this month consider a report outlining options to stop its Victorian Town Hall crumbling any further. Above: Manchester Town Hall Manchester Town Hall was built in 1877 and, although still structurally sound, has many elements reaching the end of their natural lifespans. It also does not meet modern access and safety standards. A report outlining options goes before the council’s resources and governance scrutiny committee next week (21st July) and the executive the following week (27th July). No final decision on the programme or its budget will be taken until autumn. Essential stop-gap works have been costed at £250m; a comprehensive restoration would cost £400m. However, unless outside funding is found, the council’s preferred option is a £330m upgrade programme. A further report will be presented to the council’s executive in autumn setting out the proposed programme and costs. It is intended that contractors to deliver the scheme will be appointed in the first half of 2017 with investigative works starting in 2018 and repair works starting in 2019 and concluding in 2023. Survey work conducted since December 2014 has found that electrics, plumbing, heating, ventilation and lift installations in the Town Hall are in poor condition, reflecting their age. As they are embedded in the fabric of the building, replacing them involves significant building works. The surveys also found that the condition of the building’s stonework, windows and roof is also deteriorating and will require intervention. The Town Hall also suffers from poor insulation and energy efficiency. More than 54,000 parts of the building fabric need attention, of which 40% require immediate repair or replacement – a figure expected to rise to 85% within five years if no action is taken. The building is also currently underused, with wasted space in areas such as the basement and a comparatively low ratio of staff to office space. From August 2016 there will be only 250 staff in the Town Hall, as some staff have had to be moved on a precautionary basis out of areas where surveys had identified that remedial works are required. Four options for levels of works were considered: Do Nothing: Not carrying out works beyond unplanned repairs would see the building slide into disrepair with spaces becoming unusable and unsafe. Parts of the building would start having to be mothballed and its ultimate closure would become a possibility.  Essential: Works to prevent the decline of the building, ensure it meets legal standards and keep spaces usable. While resolving the building’s internal issues such as the electrics, heating and plumbing and addressing decay, this option would not significantly improve public access or make a difference which people visiting the Town Hall would notice. This option would also lack flexibility for future improvements. The estimated cost for essential works is £250m. Upgrade to modern office standards (including commercial space): Improve access to the building and its services, bringing all spaces up to modern standards while restoring key heritage features and protecting others. The estimated cost for this option, including works to create commercial opportunities which would help offset the cost, is £330m. Comprehensive – full restoration and commercial: Bringing offices up to modern standards while completely restoring all heritage features to their original conditions and materials. It is estimated that this option would exceed £400m. The comprehensive option has been rejected as too expensive without major external funding, so the upgrade scheme is the recommended option. Deputy council leader Bernard Priest said: “The Town Hall is an icon of Manchester, conceived by our Victorian forbears as a proud symbol of the city’s confidence and cherished by Mancunians ever since. We’re calling this project Our Town Hall because it belongs to us all. “But it’s almost 140 years old and it is seriously showing its age. If we don’t act we will have to stop using, and start mothballing, significant parts of this much-loved building sooner rather than later. Ultimately it would have to close altogether. Such a situation would be unthinkable. “Instead we need to seize the opportunity to safeguard it for current and future generations, make the building and its treasures more accessible to Mancunians and visitors alike and bring it up to modern access and safety standards. These benefits will be felt for many decades to come. We also need to make better use of its spaces and enhance Albert Square. “This is a complex project and it’s essential that we get it right, which is why we will need to do more detailed work around the scale, timing and nature of the programme. This includes looking further at commercial options and the potential for third part support which we anticipate could reduce costs.” Laing O’Rourke’s recent renovation of Manchester’s Central Library and Town Hall Extension have already shown how historic buildings can be overhauled to meet modern needs while retaining their historic characters. The council says that it was always envisaged that the Town Hall would be refurbished next to ensure that the Town Hall Complex retains its grandeur.     This article was published on 14 Jul 2016 (last updated on 14 Jul 2016). Source link