Dear Client / Colleague

As you might be aware there are new proposed changes to the Construction Regulations 2024 published for public comment for a period of 90 days. We have deep concerns regarding specific provisions that will affect every construction project going forward. 

We urge you to read through our concerns, and if you agree please add your name to the petition. 

We have 2 concerns:

1.      The definition of Agent and Client which excludes all other safety professionals from representing the client, does not matter the size of the project.

2.      The requirement for a construction work permit for double story buildings.

 

1.      The definition of “agent” and “client”

The first concern is with the definition and scope of the term “agent”, which currently reads:

“Agent” means a Professional Construction Health and Safety Agent (PrCHSA) registered with a statutory body approved by the Chief Inspector.”

“Client” now includes any person or entity contracting for construction work at any stage.

According to:

Regulation 5(5): If a construction work permit is required, the client must appoint an Agent (PrCHSA).

Regulation 5(6): Even for notification-only projects, if a client chooses to appoint an agent, that agent per definition must be a registered agent with SACPCMP, which is a PrCHSA. This effectively prohibits the client from appointing a CHSM or any other registered person.

At the same time:

Regulation 8(2) empowers the principal contractor to appoint a Construction Health and Safety Manager (CHSM) to manage site-level compliance.

Here’s the crux:

If a client wants someone to legally act on their behalf in health and safety matters — by implication they cannot appoint a CHSM or internal safety officer as an agent. It must be a PrCHSA. SACPCMP registered only about 130 PrCHSA's in the last 11 years, which seriously jeopardise the practical implementation of this legislation. 

1.1.  Exclusion of CHSMs from Agent Duties

This narrow definition effectively excludes Health and Safety Managers (CHSMs) from performing the duties of a safety agent. This change undermines established industry practice and threatens both the viability of health and safety businesses and the professional development of CHSMs.

Traditionally, PrCHSAs have overseen project stages 1–4, while CHSMs conduct safety audits and implementation from stage 5 onward under supervision. This collaborative model has been successful in upholding high safety standards across diverse projects.

1.2.  Practical Challenges and Resource Constraints

South Africa currently has approximately 150 registered PrCHSAs (as per the SACPCMP 2022/23 Annual Report), an insufficient number to service the volume of active construction projects. Major clients such as SANRAL, with over 500 projects, would be heavily impacted.

The proposed limitation could lead to:

Project delays due to unavailability of authorised professionals.
Increased costs caused by constrained supply and bidding pressure.
Reduced access to safety audits, particularly in rural and resource-limited regions.
1.3.  Legal Inconsistencies and the Supervision Principle

Sections 26(3) and 26(4) of the Project and Construction Management Professions Act 48 of 2000 explicitly allow for professionals to perform duties under the direction, supervision, or control of a registered professional.

Across other professions—such as engineering and law—candidates are permitted to gain hands-on experience under supervision. However, CHSMs remain restricted from similar opportunities, limiting their growth and hindering succession planning in the industry.

1.4.  Professional Development and Fair Access

This restriction creates a professional bottleneck:

CHSMs cannot gain experience in stages 1–4.
Without that experience, they cannot register as PrCHSAs.
This results in professional stagnation and a shrinking pipeline of qualified agents.
CHSMs already invest significant time and financial resources in SACPCMP registration, CPD, and compliance. Denying them pathways to experience contradicts the spirit of professional development.

1.5.  Labour Rights and Constitutional Concerns

We believe the exclusion may infringe upon:

Section 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to choose a profession and practice it freely.
Section 23, which provides the right to fair labour practices, including equal access to work opportunities and progression.
1.6.  Global Best Practice Comparison

In jurisdictions such as the UK, Australia, and Canada, health and safety systems support layered competency frameworks. Certified safety managers are permitted to operate under supervision, fostering both compliance and professional growth. The South African model should align with such progressive and inclusive systems.

1.7.  Economic Impact and Job Security

Restricting audits to a small group of professionals could result in:

Escalating service costs due to supply-and-demand imbalance.
Potential job losses, as companies face delays and downscaling due to lack of available PrCHSAs.
Reduced participation of small businesses unable to afford premium consultant fees.
1.8.  Anti-Competitive Implications

The proposed restriction may inadvertently create anti-competitive conditions in the construction safety profession. By reserving safety agent functions solely for a limited group of PrCHSAs—when CHSMs have historically performed these duties—the regulation could:

Limit competition and inflate service costs.
Deny clients the freedom to engage the most qualified or experienced professional.
Contravene the principles of fair trade and market access as outlined in South Africa’s Competition Act 89 of 1998.
This centralisation of service provision may be interpreted as an exclusionary practice that harms both professionals and clients, with broader implications for economic fairness and professional mobility.

1.9.  Data-Driven Insight

Based on internal estimates and industry experience, CHSMs currently perform more than 70% of routine safety audits across many provinces. Excluding them from this role would not only disrupt operations but also compromise continuity in safety oversight.

Proposed Solutions and Path Forward

We propose the following measures to address the challenge constructively:

Supervised Practice: Confirm that CHSMs may operate under PrCHSA supervision in line with Clause 26(4) of Act 48 of 2000.
Transitional Phase: Introduce a 3–5 year transition period during which CHSMs may continue performing agent duties under supervision while working towards PrCHSA status.
Structured Mentorship: Incentivise PrCHSAs to mentor CHSMs, ensuring transfer of knowledge and experience.
Alternative Pathways: Develop transitional or incremental certification frameworks to recognise partial experience.
Client Discretion: Preserve clients’ autonomy to appoint professionals based on both registration and demonstrable experience, especially in niche sectors.
 

 
 

2.      Opposition to Construction Work Permit Requirement for Double-Storey Houses in 2024 Construction Regulations

We strongly object the inclusion of double-storey houses under the Construction Work Permit (CWP) requirement in the 2024 Construction Regulations for the following reasons:

2.1.  Disproportionate Gap in Threshold

The proposed amendment creates a vast and unjustified leap from the current threshold — which applies to projects exceeding R60 million or CIDB Grade 6 — to now include any structure over two storeys. This leap places small-scale residential developments on the same regulatory level as major infrastructure projects, despite their vastly different complexities and risks. 

2.2.  Roof Height Is Not an Absolute Indicator of Risk

It is important to note that the roof of a factory or warehouse can be significantly higher than that of a double-storey house, yet such buildings might not require a CWP under the proposed regulations if they remain single-storey. This illustrates the flawed logic of using storey count as a regulatory threshold, rather than considering actual height, structural complexity, or risk exposure.

2.3.  Exclusion of Smaller Contractors

Under the new rules, the DoEL requires the person appointed as the construction manager hold a relevant qualification and be registered with the SACPCMP. This condition will exclude many smaller and informal contractors who are not in a financial or logistical position to employ such professionals, thereby forcing them out of the residential market.

2.4.  Increased Cost to Homeowners

The requirement for a valid CWP includes the appointment of a Professional Construction Health and Safety Agent (PrCHSA). These professionals charge substantial fees, which will inflate the overall cost of building a double-storey house — a cost most residential clients cannot afford, particularly in low- to middle-income sectors.

2.5.  Bureaucratic Burden on Simple Projects

Introducing a permit requirement for every double-storey home adds unnecessary red tape to relatively lower-risk, small-scale projects. This administrative overhead can lead to delays in project commencement, driving up costs and frustrating both clients and contractors.

 

2.6.  Capacity Strain on Regulatory Authorities

Expanding the permit requirement to cover thousands of residential projects each year will overwhelm the DoEL's processing capabilities, leading to bottlenecks, slower approvals, and inconsistent enforcement — undermining the very goal of improving construction site safety.

 

2.7.  Misalignment with Risk-Based Regulation

Double-storey homes typically do not involve the same levels of structural, environmental, or human risk as multi-storey commercial developments. Effective safety can still be maintained through existing risk assessments and health & safety plans, without the need for a full-scale permit process. We are not convinced that a CWP will contribute to site safety.

 

The proposed permit requirement is disproportionate, impractical, and misaligned with the core principles of risk-based regulation. We urge that double-storey residential projects be excluded from the CWP requirement to preserve fairness, economic viability, and functional regulatory oversight.