On the defence estate, ambiguity isn’t just a project hurdle; it’s a threat to national capability. Reconciling secrecy with the legal mandate to provide relevant risk information requires a new kind of transparency, writes Ashley Moore.
Defence construction exists in a permanent state of tension. On one side lies the absolute requirement for operational security and the “need-to-know” principle; on the other, a legal mandate to provide relevant health and safety information to those who need it to manage risk.
In the rush to upgrade maintenance depots, test ranges, and secure logistics sites, the industry is finding that a lack of clarity in this “security-safety” interface is becoming a primary driver of project risk.
As we modernise the estate to support next-generation hardware, the complexity of these builds is increasing. Yet, the mission remains the same: delivering high-specification facilities on schedule without compromising the safety of the workforce or the security of the site. In this environment, “good enough” coordination is a direct threat to mission success.
The dual framework: CDM and JSP 375
Construction work on the defence estate in Great Britain is governed by the same primary legislation as any other sector: the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015). This framework mandates the protection of workers “so far as is reasonably practicable.”
However, defence projects operate under a unique dual-governance structure. While CDM 2015 provides the statutory framework, the Ministry of Defence’s JSP 375 (Management of Health and Safety in Defence) series sets out the corporate requirements for managing risks within the MOD.
Under this framework, the Client has overall responsibility for making suitable arrangements so that construction work can be carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks to health and safety. In a defence context, this means:
- Structured information flow: Ensuring the Principal Designer has the time, resources, and information needed to identify site-specific hazards—such as unexploded ordnance (UXO), hazardous materials, or live operational interfaces—without breaching security classifications.
- Integrated governance: Aligning defence-specific permits-to-work and assurance processes with CDM arrangements, so they reinforce rather than cut across each other.
- Competence assurance: Ensuring that every contractor on site understands both the safety risks of the build and the security constraints of the environment.
The high cost of fragmentation
The defence sector often relies on complex tiers of subcontracting. However, recent HSE data underscores the “human cost” of failing to manage these interfaces effectively. Across all UK sectors, work-related ill health and injury led to an estimated 40.1 million working days lost in 2024/25, with the annual economic cost reaching £22.9 billion.
In defence, where schedules are often tied to critical capability milestones, a safety-related stop-work order doesn’t just impact the balance sheet—it impacts readiness. Furthermore, the “macho” culture often associated with both construction and military environments can contribute to the under-reporting of stress and anxiety, which now accounts for around half of all work-related ill health in Great Britain.
What is required is a shift from “siloed” security and safety to an integrated “Secure by Design” approach.
Technically informed safety leadership
Managing a secure site requires more than just a perimeter fence; it requires technically informed safety leadership that uses modern tools to bridge the information gap.
Building Information Modelling (BIM) and common data environments are increasingly central to planning safer construction around secure areas. By “digitally rehearsing” the build, designers can:
- Identify clashes: Ensure that new infrastructure doesn’t interfere with existing secure utilities or emergency access.
- Plan maintenance: Design out the need for high-risk maintenance in restricted areas before the first brick is laid.
- Coordinate logistics: Manage the movement of materials and personnel while adhering to strict security protocols.
Integrating safety with mission success
In the unique environment of the defence estate, the “security-safety” interface must be seamless to be effective. We must move away from the idea that secrecy and safety information are in competition; instead, they should be viewed as twin pillars supporting national capability.
The path to a resilient estate lies in technically informed leadership that anticipates hazards long before they reach a secure site. When we treat safety as a core component of mission readiness, we do more than just follow the law – we ensure that our national infrastructure is built on a foundation of stability and professional excellence.
- Ashley Moore is Managing Director of QSC Safety, a leading provider of health and safety services with more than three decades of experience supporting complex, high-hazard construction projects.
