Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Benaim of the game


Charlie Hutchison's letter (NCE last week) prompts me to write in support of Robert Benaim's eminently sensible and, in today's HSE/CDM obsessed climate, brave letter (NCE 3 June).

I may have missed it in the current correspondence on designer safety responsibility, but one thing does not seem to have been brought out, although Benaim hints at it.

That is, the form of procurement has the major influence on the roles and responsibilities of the parties to the contract and their professional advisors.

One only needs to consider differences between, say, design and construct procurement and traditional ICE or similar standard forms.

It seems illogical to apply a 'one size fits all approach' to the extent of a designer's responsibilities for construction safety. Benaim is absolutely right to say, in effect, that the designer's responsibilities must be consistent with his or her ability to influence and control the construction process. I cannot see why Hutchison should take issue with this perfectly logical argument.

Chris Lilley (M), The Tile House, 10 Burts Lane, Long Crendon, Bucks, HP18 9AJ

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.