Twenty-six subcontractors and an eight-page plan three days before go-ahead
On a nine-storey office block with 26 subcontractors, the contractor submits an 8-page health and safety plan three days before the client's go-ahead. The client's health and safety specification requires a fall protection plan with a rescue plan, a site-specific baseline risk assessment, an emergency plan coordinated with the nearest hospital, monthly documented audits and a CHSO registered with SACPCMP. The submitted plan is the contractor's standard head-office template. It names a CHSO who is registered in the Candidate category and who is currently assigned to three other sites. The fall protection section is one paragraph stating that 'all work at height will comply'. There is no permit-to-work system, no scaffolding inspection regime and no subcontractor onboarding procedure. The project director wants the plan 'approved with conditions, so we don't lose the programme'.
1. Do you approve, approve with conditions, or reject? Give the reasoning you would put in writing.
Read the worked answer
Reject, and say exactly why in a numbered letter. 'Approve with conditions' is only honest when the conditions are bounded, dated and do not touch the parts of the plan that make the site safe. Here they touch everything.
Reasons:
- The plan is not site-specific. It was written before anyone looked at this building. The specification asked for a response to nine storeys, 26 subcontractors and a hoisting interface; a template cannot answer that.
- The CHSO appointment is not workable. A Candidate-category registrant works under supervision; a nine-storey project with 26 subcontractors cannot be the supervised first posting, and a person split across four sites is a name on a document, not a presence on site. Resourcing is a safety control, not an HR detail.
- Work at height is the dominant risk on this project and it has one paragraph and no rescue plan. A fall arrest system with no rescue capability converts a fall into a suspension fatality within minutes.
- No permit-to-work, no scaffold inspection regime, no subcontractor onboarding. These are the systems that would actually operate on day one; their absence is not a formatting issue.
Do not let the programme set the standard. Record that the plan was submitted late relative to site establishment, and that the three-day window is the contractor's schedule problem, not a reason for the CHSO or the client's agent to sign a document they do not believe.
2. Draft the conditions you would accept, including the stage at which limited work may start.
Read the worked answer
Stage 1 - enabling works only (no work at height, no excavation, no hoisting over walkways):
- Site establishment, fencing, ablutions, offices, services to the offices, with a signed site layout.
Conditions for Stage 1 (dated, verifiable):
- Revised plan, site-specific, cross-referenced clause by clause to the client's specification.
- Named CHSO, registration category stated, with the hours per week committed to this site and the supervisor who will cover absence.
- Baseline risk assessment for this site, signed by a competent person, with the top five risks carrying engineering controls.
- Emergency plan with the hospital route, travel time, a named first aider per shift and a tested communication method.
- Subcontractor onboarding procedure: vetting, induction, permit to work, and a register that shows who is on site today.
Gate to Stage 2 (work at height):
- Fall protection plan including the rescue plan and the rescue equipment on site, not ordered;
- permit-to-work for work at height, scaffold erection and removal, and hoisting;
- scaffold inspection and tagging regime with a named competent inspector;
- first monthly audit scheduled and a corrective-action tracker that closes items.
Communication: put the gates in the project programme as hold points, so that the refusal to sign is a scheduled event rather than a surprise three days before mobilisation. Approval of a plan is a professional act; the CHSO's signature is evidence that they applied their mind, and it will be read that way after an incident.
3. The CHSO is registered as a Candidate and reports to the project director who wants approval. What is the professional position?
Read the worked answer
Two separate issues, often conflated:
Competence and authority. A Candidate registration signals supervised practice. Accepting an appointment as the sole CHSO on a nine-storey, 26-subcontractor site is outside that. The correct move is to decline the appointment in writing, or accept it with a named, registered supervisor and a defined supervision arrangement that the client has accepted. Accepting silently and then signing plans makes the individual the author of a system they cannot operate.
Pressure. The project director's instruction is a commercial preference, not a safety judgement. The CHSO's response is not defiance; it is a written recommendation with reasons, copied to the contractor's 16(2) appointee and the client. If it is overridden, the record shows who overrode it and on what basis.
The temptation is to sign because refusing feels like it costs the job. The professional risk runs the other way: the plan with your signature on it will be the first document produced at an inquiry, and 'I was told to' answers the question of motive but not the question of competence. Where an instruction would require signing something you do not believe, escalate in writing - and if the escalation is ignored, the registration body's code of conduct expects you to consider reporting the matter rather than absorbing it.