1st September 2008, 06:28 PM
Uo1
In the second Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) that accompanied the first CDM Regs, some clarity was provided with regard to certain works that may be excluded from the Regs by virtue of not actually bei ng 'construction' - remember that the CDM Regs only apply to construction.
These excluded activities included archaeological works that may be undertaken in advance of construction - i.e. before any other contractor is on the job.
However, once a construction project falls within CDM, all works including archaeological ones are deemed to be within the Regs. Thus if you are carrying out a watching brief on a construction site which is subject to CDM, then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the CDM Regs, and would have to carry out the duries of a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs.
If you are carrying out an excavation on a construction site which is subject to CDM then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs. If you produced the Method Statement for the excavation then you may also be a 'Designer' as defined by the Regs. I have always considered that a CAO producing a Brief would also be a 'Designer'.
If you are the only contractor on site at the time of the works then you may need to be the 'Principal Contractor' as defined by the Regs, because there always has to be a 'Principal Contractor'. It is possible (but not necessarily wise) for an archaeologist or archaeological unit to be a 'Planning Supervisor' as defined by the Regs.
If asked to be a 'Principal Contractor' or a 'Planning Supervisor' any archaeologist should seek independent advice, as these positions carry defined legal responsibilities. Separate budgets for undertaking these duties should be clearly identified.
Also remember, the ACOP merely represents the HSEs current understanding of the Regs., but this is not always the same understanding that may be reached in a court of law.
In the event of an accident on site, the prosecuting authority may go after everyone involved and the ACOP may be found to be wanting in some way - i.e. just because the ACOP says that advance archaeological works are not 'construction' doesn't mean that advance archaeological workw are not 'construction'! A little bit of case law would go a long way towards settling this, but unfortunately would only come as the result of an accident followed by a prosecution.
Beamo
In the second Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) that accompanied the first CDM Regs, some clarity was provided with regard to certain works that may be excluded from the Regs by virtue of not actually bei ng 'construction' - remember that the CDM Regs only apply to construction.
These excluded activities included archaeological works that may be undertaken in advance of construction - i.e. before any other contractor is on the job.
However, once a construction project falls within CDM, all works including archaeological ones are deemed to be within the Regs. Thus if you are carrying out a watching brief on a construction site which is subject to CDM, then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the CDM Regs, and would have to carry out the duries of a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs.
If you are carrying out an excavation on a construction site which is subject to CDM then you are subject to CDM and would become a 'Contractor' as defined by the Regs. If you produced the Method Statement for the excavation then you may also be a 'Designer' as defined by the Regs. I have always considered that a CAO producing a Brief would also be a 'Designer'.
If you are the only contractor on site at the time of the works then you may need to be the 'Principal Contractor' as defined by the Regs, because there always has to be a 'Principal Contractor'. It is possible (but not necessarily wise) for an archaeologist or archaeological unit to be a 'Planning Supervisor' as defined by the Regs.
If asked to be a 'Principal Contractor' or a 'Planning Supervisor' any archaeologist should seek independent advice, as these positions carry defined legal responsibilities. Separate budgets for undertaking these duties should be clearly identified.
Also remember, the ACOP merely represents the HSEs current understanding of the Regs., but this is not always the same understanding that may be reached in a court of law.
In the event of an accident on site, the prosecuting authority may go after everyone involved and the ACOP may be found to be wanting in some way - i.e. just because the ACOP says that advance archaeological works are not 'construction' doesn't mean that advance archaeological workw are not 'construction'! A little bit of case law would go a long way towards settling this, but unfortunately would only come as the result of an accident followed by a prosecution.
Beamo