Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

archtech · 27-01-2014 3:01pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

im hearing of figures of 8% of construction costs to administer these new regs...

so on a 200K tender thats 16k

I was recently talking to an architectural technologist who said that he's been getting 7-8% on residential projects for the last few years, which I found hard to believe. Mine you most of his work is around The Pale.

I would be expecting that fees will be in the order of 10-12% myself for a dwelling under the 2014 Regs, where the letter of the law is followed. There will be a lot of time spend doing paperwork to demonstrate compliance and cover oneself in the event of a future course case.

Rabbo · 27-01-2014 3:02pm

Is there any idea when the final Code of Practice is going to be published?

4Sticks · 27-01-2014 3:13pm

Prediction.
Much hysteria on Jo Puffy show just after Paddys day.
Fat Kenny will do "serious" follow up on NT shortly afterwards with Hogan denouncing Architects as opportunistic rip off merchants.

DOCARCH · 27-01-2014 4:18pm

4Sticks wrote: »

The RIAI has formally welcomed the changes .....

:eek: S**t stirrer! :P

4Sticks wrote: »

The RIAI has formally welcomed the changes .....

....with a but....(it should be noted) and that was last April (the [cautious] welcome).

There is no MRIAI I know of who is happy with these new regulations.

4Sticks · 27-01-2014 4:52pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

There is no MRIAI I know of who is happy with these new regulations.

No , I do know that. I think that , along with many MRIAI , that the leadership here have served their membership badly.

I believe that the RIAI leadership think that by funneling the task-load toward the choosen few that the market will wear that and fees will accrue to the membership.

It won't.

The market will do like it always does to beat the price down. Or it will not engage either by

1. not building / postponing . Where there once were projects there will no longer be. The "human right" to build one's own home will be only for the select few.
2. attempting to ignore the regs as much as it can.

4Sticks · 27-01-2014 5:16pm

Winners and losers

5. Self-builder/consumers: A silent majority self-builders account for over 60% of all homes completed in any year. As self-builders now need to employ a contractor as well as additional certifiers under SI9 they have to fork out an extra €23,000 per typical house for the privilege. Almost 13% extra on top of the construction cost. Every farmer who planned to build a house on his/her land for their children will be affected. Will become extinct after March 2014. Self-builders are no question the biggest losers.

jonniebgood1 · 27-01-2014 8:18pm

4Sticks wrote: »

[Every farmer who planned to build a house on his/her land for their children will be affected]

A farmer should stick to the day job just as with any other trade/ profession.

I don't see how they attribute a cost to "self-builders now need to employ a contractor ".
If a self builder employs a contractor they are not a self builder and also the cost given is dependant on the project as there is no 'typical house'..

martinn123 · 27-01-2014 8:39pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A farmer should stick to the day job just as with any other trade/ profession.

Thats a bit unfair, in my opinion.
having had a house constructed by Direct Labour, I recognize that I am not say a plumber or an electrician, however as a landowner and capable of project management, whats that got to do with a day job

Given that

A silent majority self-builders account for over 60% of all homes completed in any year.

They cannot or should not be dismissed by ''Keep to the day job''

I don't see how they attribute a cost to "self-builders now need to employ a contractor ".
If a self builder employs a contractor they are not a self builder and also the cost given is dependant on the project as there is no 'typical house'..

The answer is the cost, or profit taken by the Contractor, if that can be saved it can mean a cheaper build

I employed an Architect, the build was supervised and certified, I was happy to pay his fee, but I saved on the Project management costs, by managing that myself.

4Sticks · 27-01-2014 8:42pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A farmer should stick to the day job just as with any other trade/ profession.

I don't see how they attribute a cost to "self-builders now need to employ a contractor ".
If a self builder employs a contractor they are not a self builder and also the cost given is dependant on the project as there is no 'typical house'..

Arrogance , blindness and speciousness all wrapped up into one post that says more about you than it does about farmers.

topcatcbr · 27-01-2014 9:45pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A farmer should stick to the day job just as with any other trade/ profession.

I don't see how they attribute a cost to "self-builders now need to employ a contractor ".
If a self builder employs a contractor they are not a self builder and also the cost given is dependant on the project as there is no 'typical house'..

How did you get to be a mod.

Nobody knows it all and there are many routes to becoming a competent builder. In fact I don't see any course aimed at complete building knowledge.

Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot do.

BryanF · 27-01-2014 10:01pm

attack the post and not the poster, please

4Sticks · 27-01-2014 10:30pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If a self builder employs a contractor they are not a self builder

The Irish Association of Self Builders beg to differ

You can still self build even if the project has been passed on to a building contractor to complete by getting involved in the designs and decisions.

jonniebgood1 · 28-01-2014 10:43am

martinn123 wrote: »

Thats a bit unfair, in my opinion.
having had a house constructed by Direct Labour, I recognize that I am not say a plumber or an electrician, however as a landowner and capable of project management, whats that got to do with a day job

It was unfair- My tongue was firmly in my cheek with that comment, particularly given the number of self-builds in my own particular rural area. There is however a point that most would understand behind my comment that is missed by subsequent posters and perhaps also the legislation (albeit I did lol at one comment in particular!).

Self builders such as martin above are perfectly within their rights to manage their own project (I would not offer advice or help to people on the forum if I did not believe this). Such people should not be lumped in with the other group of people who moved on from selling sites to developing their own sites with the purpose of selling them on. This resulted in many of the worst examples of construction in Ireland in the Celtic tiger years. I recently saw a house where the footpaths (external) and floor (internal) were poured together as the one slab at the one height with no separation. I know 1 example proves nothing but in general if someone is building a house with the aim of a quick sale the result will not be good. Surely people can see that it is Celtic tiger construction that has prompted this legislation.

sydthebeat · 28-01-2014 11:13am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

... Surely people can see that it is Celtic tiger construction that has prompted this legislation.

perhaps it was celtic tiger construction that brought the issues with the self certification system to their extremes, but in reality these issues were always there since their inception.
The initial building control act of 1990 was written with the intent of having building designers certify the design of buildings and the builders certify the building (*david keane, building and law 4th edition)

These amendment regulations are simply enacting AGAIN what the 1990 regulations asked for, but were never practised.

The 1993 wording of the RIAIs standard Certs Of Compliance (written with the blessing of the Law Society) introduced the watered down wording of "opinion" and "substantial" etc.

The big impact of the amendment regs is that Builders now have to certify what they build.

Poor Uncle Tom · 28-01-2014 11:14am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Surely people can see that it is Celtic tiger construction that has prompted this legislation.

Nope, knee jerk reaction to Priory Hall prompted this.

Just as Priory Hall in indicative of the worst type of construction carried out over the last 20 years, this new legislation is indicative of the poorest form of leadership and a blind waste of a golden opportunity to actually make a difference in the construction industry in this country.

jonniebgood1 · 28-01-2014 12:30pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

The big impact of the amendment regs is that Builders now have to certify what they build.

I agree that the emphasis on builders is largely increased. Some people seem to ignore this with the fuss about certifiers PI implications. The conflict with self builders emanates from here as a self builder who goes on to sell their construction has no liability.

4Sticks · 29-01-2014 12:00am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

a self builder who goes on to sell their construction has no liability.

I disagree and think under certain circumstances they will do

As the building owner, I have assigned the following person as Builder of the building or works and I am satisfied that they are competent to undertake the works so assigned on my behalf.

is one of several statements a self builder will now have to sign. I believe that if the house is sold on and then if a legal action was to follow that a diligent solicitor will join the self builder together with the architect and contractor in the action on foot of this statement alone.

I also believe that if the relationship between self builder and contractor breaks down during the build that this signed statement may tend to undermine the self builders case.

Time will tell of course ( as I polish my crystal ball )

strongback · 29-01-2014 1:01am

I spoke to a colleague who was at a meeting of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland (ACEI). The ACEI have been part of the negotiations with the DOE and they have now apparently accepted the new wordings.

All indications from where I'm sitting is the amendments are going to come into effect on the 1st of March and that's it. I think there are positive and negative aspects to the amendments but if it cuts out cowboy behaviour it has to be a good thing in my view. Hopefully some practical guides on how to apply the legislation will be published by the likes of the DOE, RIAI, ACEI, EI, insurers etc.

How the changes effects the pricing of jobs, number of site visits etc, I suppose will only be known with trial and error. I will be increasing my fees, the days of doing more work for less fees are over for me. If somebody wants to do a job for nothing I have no problem standing aside.

BryanF · 29-01-2014 1:46am

what level of detail will the certifier be expected to submit to council?

for example, lets take to opposing ends of the spectrum.
two arch practices, neither have any claims against them etc.
one does no detailing what so ever, apart from the very odd site sketch instruction. the other does all major details and any unusual junctions etc at tender stage.

will both be considered satisfactory? essentially will both be 'grand' unless/until sometime in the future a claim made..

the Cork rural housing guide, gives a clear indication of what is expected as part of a planning application. it seems reasonable the same info should be available at this stage outlining the new BC submission.. there is a wider discussion here but:

will there be variations in submissions across different councils? and if so what liability will the council have for not insisting on a clear standard of documentation: none as far as i can see..

4Sticks · 29-01-2014 8:18am

BryanF wrote: »

what level of detail will the certifier be expected to submit to council?

Interesting question. I have often felt that Fire Safety Certificate application drawings have long since developed more so into a Fire Officers / Lawyers set of documents and less so into a set of documents useful for construction. A fire resisting wall being described in great detail as to what fire rating it must achieve and to what test criteria etc without a word on the materials to be used in it's construction.

So who else here can see a situation where a Commencement Notice set of documents issued to a local authority under SI 9 / 2014 will for example describe an external wall construction something like this

External wall thickness nominal thickness to be nominally 450mm thick comprising of either rendered block face over timber frame or solid blockwork with min 200mm EWI or cavity wall with 100mm internal and external leafs and insulated cavity . In any event the U Value of the wall shall be 0.21 w/m2K in accordance with BR 443 2006

In other words documents prepared to satisfy this legislation may become legal - technical not construction - technical to mimimise the Designers risk.

Gumbo · 29-01-2014 10:55am

BryanF wrote: »

what level of detail will the certifier be expected to submit to council?

As vague as it is, this is the official word on it :

General arrangement drawings

List of design documents (as prepared or to be prepared)

Outline statement of compliance approach

Proposed inspection plan

As per the other forum, for me it depends on the particular job. At the very minimum, considering you are starting on site in 14 days, i would like to see foundation plan with any on site drainage and how you proposed to deal with it.

Also the plan should show critical dimensions and radon protection etc

BryanF · 29-01-2014 11:10am

kceire wrote: »

As vague as it is, this is the official word on it :

As per the other forum, for me it depends on the particular job. At the very minimum, considering you are starting on site in 14 days, i would like to see foundation plan with any on site drainage and how you proposed to deal with it.

Also the plan should show critical dimensions and radon protection etc

Sounds like an administration nightmare, being drip feed construction dwgs...

Gumbo · 29-01-2014 12:21pm

BryanF wrote: »

Sounds like an administration nightmare, being drip feed construction dwgs...

It could be i suppose, but if they arrive on time digitally, seemly its just a case of uploading them against the specific CN file.

4Sticks · 29-01-2014 1:42pm

A 15% inspection rate of a €11.5bn industry, for 67 staff, equates to one Building control officer inspecting €171 Million worth of buildings per year; for each officer .That ranges from once-off houses, kitchen extensions, retail parks, stadia, shopping centres, places of worship- the lot.

source

Gumbo · 29-01-2014 3:31pm

4Sticks wrote: »

source

I would like to know where they got their figure of 67 BCO's.
Also, i assume the €11.5Bn construction industry includes works that would not require a commencement notice to be lodged, therefore, a BCO will no be under any obligation to inspect.

BryanF · 29-01-2014 4:23pm

kceire wrote: »

I would like to know where they got their figure of 67 BCO's.
Also, i assume the €11.5Bn construction industry includes works that would not require a commencement notice to be lodged, therefore, a BCO will no be under any obligation to inspect.

IMHO this is much of the problem with the BCO system - no transparency, no accountability, and no interest/ requirement to inspect domestic retro-fits or extensions under 40sqm...

4Sticks · 29-01-2014 5:19pm

I think the main point is we have far too few BCO's in Ireland.

Gumbo · 29-01-2014 6:33pm

BryanF wrote: »

IMHO this is much of the problem with the BCO system - no transparency, no accountability, and no interest/ requirement to inspect domestic retro-fits or extensions under 40sqm...

The department sets out the requirements. If a development is exempt from planning then the BCO gets no notification of impending works.

The CN usually kick starts the process for a BCO to pick their inspections whether that be random or from a high risk matrix.

jonniebgood1 · 29-01-2014 9:49pm

kceire wrote: »

As vague as it is, this is the official word on it :

•General arrangement drawings
•List of design documents (as prepared or to be prepared)
•Outline statement of compliance approach
•Proposed inspection plan

I predict:

General arrangement drawings - Planning drawings with changed title text.
List of design documents (as prepared or to be prepared) - Notes on finishes as sent in at planning stage.
Outline statement of compliance approach - A standard letter to be sent in with every commencement pack.
Proposed inspection plan - A standard letter noting inspections at Foundation stage, roof start, roof finish, etc.

If this type of copy & paste solution is used will the councils prevent commencement. I doubt it very much as their role seems to be that of a storage facility for this information rather than cross checking of it.

jonniebgood1 · 29-01-2014 9:51pm

4Sticks wrote: »

I also believe that if the relationship between self builder and contractor breaks down during the build that this signed statement may tend to undermine the self builders case.

Time will tell of course ( as I polish my crystal ball )

If a self builder has a contractor then they are not a self-builder. Or is there a way around this?

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments