Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Options
1…3132343637…53

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Penn wrote: »
    There is regular checking, it requires annual renewal, and there is a requirement for CPD. In fairness, the CIRI in theory sounds very extensive in what's required for joining and continued membership. How it works in practice will be the key.

    Who owns it?


  • Options
    #993
    ml100
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭ml100


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So. ..... I ask again, why should novice self builder be allowed to consider themselves competent?

    And let's be honest here, if the self builder wants to lay blocks or cut a roof, as long as the builder is happy to sign of their work, and the certifier is too, then they can still give input to their build.

    how about the self builders that will hire in sub contractors to do all the work, from what I have seen around where I live this is very common, the self builders are not actually doing the building work just project managing the build, now they will have to pay a contractor to do this making a lot of these self builds not feasible as these rural houses will not be worth what they will cost to build making it impossible to get a mortgage for them.

    There was a figure of 60% of house completions last year were self builds, how many of these would go ahead now with SI9?


  • Options
    #994
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,232 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who owns it?

    The CIF.


  • Options
    #995
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Penn wrote: »
    The CIF.

    Could be akin to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.


  • Options
    #996
    mullingar
    Registered Users Posts: 5,341 ✭✭✭mullingar


    It really is a sad day for self-builds if the legislation goes through with no corrections as it will really bump up the final build costs .

    Imo,very few mortgages on self builds will be granted as the final cost will be far in excess of the estimated final market value.

    Hogan and Co need to stimulate the industry not kill it. Does he really think this legislation in its current format will better the country?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,232 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Could be akin to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.

    With respect, this kind of scaremongering serves little purpose. Until we see how CIRI works in practice there's little use in condemning it when in theory it's pretty solid.


  • Options
    #998
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Penn wrote: »
    With respect, this kind of scaremongering serves little purpose. Until we see how CIRI works in practice there's little use in condemning it when in theory it's pretty solid.

    Scaremongering? Are you aware what is happening with GSOC, a supposedly independent watchdog that is in crisis precisely because it's oversight has been compromised by too much influence from 'vested interests' and by the fact that it hasn't been set up properly.
    I would call the CIF, a vested interest here. The regulation should be conducted by an independent body.


  • Options
    #999
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Could be akin to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup.

    CIRI, and the registration of builders, will be overseen by a board, the majority of which will be non builders/not CIF members.

    In theory, CIRI is very good thing, if it is implemented and policed as envisaged.


  • Options
    #1000
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    CIRI, and the registration of builders, will be overseen by a board, the majority of which will be non builders/not CIF members.

    In theory CIRI is very good thing, if it is implemented and policied as envisaged.

    I think the 1800 self Builders who will be abandoning their house builds every year would not agree


  • Options
    #1001
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    I think the 1800 self Builders who will be abandoning their house builds every year would not agree

    Probably not! :) But hopefully, for those who do use contractors, CIRI will bring a level of professionalism to building that has been lacking in the past.

    Imagine builders doing CPD! :)

    Hopefully no more builders telling me to my face, on site, 'ahh...fcuk you and your buidling regulations...I've been doin' this way since before you were born'. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Is there any requirement for the so called competent builder to appoint competent contractors?


  • Options
    #1003
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,005 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Villain wrote: »
    Is there any requirement for the so called competent builder to appoint competent contractors?

    The requirement is in the form of the certification that the builder has to sign which takes responsibility for these sub contractors work.


  • Options
    #1004
    topcatcbr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭topcatcbr


    I have been wondering this.

    How does one become a competent builder. If it's all based on experience those who are building poorly now will still be allowed to build in future as they're experienced.

    For someone setting up a building firm in the future how do they get the initial experience required.


  • Options
    #1005
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    Probably not! :) But hopefully, for those who do use contractors, CIRI will bring a level of professionalism to building that has been lacking in the past.

    Imagine builders doing CPD! :)

    Hopefully no more builders telling me to my face, on site, 'ahh...fcuk you and your buidling regulations...I've been doin' this way since before you were born'. :p

    Where are the figures that show that self builds where 'lacking' in the 'past'?


  • Options
    #1006
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Where are the figures that show that self builds where 'lacking' in the 'past'?

    I was not referring to self builds in any way? I was referring to building contractors.

    My own opinion is that many/most self builds are probably the best built structures in the country due to the huge input of the owners.


  • Options
    #1007
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,232 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Scaremongering? Are you aware what is happening with GSOC, a supposedly independent watchdog that is in crisis precisely because it's oversight has been compromised by too much influence from 'vested interests' and by the fact that it hasn't been set up properly.
    I would call the CIF, a vested interest here. The regulation should be conducted by an independent body.

    What you just said is exactly what I would describe as scaremongering. The GSOC and CIF are two very different organisations with different goals and which fall under two very different departments of government. The CIF is also not a governmental body, but rather an independent representative body for the construction industry which the government has tasked to run the CIRI.

    There will be 10 CIRI board members:
    1 representative nominated by the DoECLG
    1 representative nominated by the OPW
    1 representative nominated by the DoJEI
    1 representative from a relevant 3rd level educational institution nominated by the Minister for Education
    1 representative nominated by the Competition Authority
    5 representatives nominated by the CIF, of which at least 2 shall be members of a construction professional body who shall not be employees of a registered member of CIRI.

    No links between GSOC and CIF can currently be drawn unless they present themselves in it's operation.


  • Options
    #1008
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,232 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The requirement is in the form of the certification that the builder has to sign which takes responsibility for these sub contractors work.

    The subcontractors will have to provide auxillary certs to certify their own work though, which will form part of the main contractor's final cert.


  • Options
    #1009
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Penn wrote: »
    What you just said is exactly what I would describe as scaremongering. The GSOC and CIF are two very different organisations with different goals and which fall under two very different departments of government. The CIF is also not a governmental body, but rather an independent representative body for the construction industry which the government has tasked to run the CIRI.

    There will be 10 CIRI board members:
    1 representative nominated by the DoECLG
    1 representative nominated by the OPW
    1 representative nominated by the DoJEI
    1 representative from a relevant 3rd level educational institution nominated by the Minister for Education
    1 representative nominated by the Competition Authority
    5 representatives nominated by the CIF, of which at least 2 shall be members of a construction professional body who shall not be employees of a registered member of CIRI.

    No links between GSOC and CIF can currently be drawn unless they present themselves in it's operation.


    It's already a mess and it hasn't even come into effect yet.
    Forgive me for having no faith in independent oversight in this country at the moment. It is very much a case of wait and see. But my opinion is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water already.


  • Options
    #1010
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,005 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Penn wrote: »
    The subcontractors will have to provide auxillary certs to certify their own work though, which will form part of the main contractor's final cert.

    They should, they do not 'have to'.


  • Options
    #1011
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,232 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    They should, they do not 'have to'.

    Actually yeah, you're right. Apologies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    They should, they do not 'have to'.

    Will that not just ensure that any legal recourse is bogged down in years of litigation attempting to prove who was culpable with the consumer (who this legislation should be about) caught in the middle?


  • Options
    #1013
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,005 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Will that not just ensure that any legal recourse is bogged down in years of litigation attempting to prove who was culpable with the consumer (who this legislation should be about) caught in the middle?

    BINGO... you've just got it !!!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #1014
    4Sticks
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    Hogan is lying to all. He is making it easier for the state to never again have to rescue another Priory Hall and suburban development blighted by Pyrite and has inflicted collateral damage on self builders and architectural technicians in the process. He protects the state not it's citizens with the mock pretence only of improving consumers rights.


  • Options
    #1015
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    I know people my not be able to answer here, but I have been wondering did the Department do a RIA (Regulatory Impact Assesment) in relation to the new regs?

    I read somewhere before they did not do a RIA.

    Has anybody heard or know if they did?


  • Options
    #1016
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Penn wrote: »
    What you just said is exactly what I would describe as scaremongering. The GSOC and CIF are two very different organisations with different goals and which fall under two very different departments of government. The CIF is also not a governmental body, but rather an independent representative body for the construction industry which the government has tasked to run the CIRI.

    There will be 10 CIRI board members:
    1 representative nominated by the DoECLG
    1 representative nominated by the OPW
    1 representative nominated by the DoJEI
    1 representative from a relevant 3rd level educational institution nominated by the Minister for Education
    1 representative nominated by the Competition Authority
    5 representatives nominated by the CIF, of which at least 2 shall be members of a construction professional body who shall not be employees of a registered member of CIRI.

    No links between GSOC and CIF can currently be drawn unless they present themselves in it's operation.

    The CRC Board wasn't connected to GSOC either!, there is an element of scaremongering in what Happyman has said however sadly history also tells us we would be very naive to think that this board will be free from vested interest, I mean almost 50% of members will be nominated by a private body the CIF who have a former Minister of State as lobbyist?


  • Options
    #1017
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    lets agree on one issue

    si.9 reinforces self-regulation

    no matter what way its presented we will be left with a €10bn industry with no independent regulation or oversight

    all these codified roles etc. are just putting lipstick on the gorilla


  • Options
    #1018
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    ...all these codified roles etc. are just putting lipstick on the gorilla

    :P

    I see on Twitter a link to an article in today's Independent with quotes from Phil Hogan (I cannot link)...more spin and selective commentry.

    PH quoted as saying that the 'likely' impact of SI 9 on the homeowner will only be between E1K and E3K additional cost 'per unit'.

    That's all well and good, but I assume when he says 'per unit' he is referring (in reality) to houses within a development and/or apartments where there will be economies of scale, in terms of fees/costs, in connection with the requirement for a Design and Assigned Certifiers.

    It goes on to say (quote PH) 'although in reality, the actual cost will be decided by market forces'!


  • Options
    #1019
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    4Sticks wrote: »
    Hogan is lying to all. He is making it easier for the state to never again have to rescue another Priory Hall and suburban development blighted by Pyrite and has inflicted collateral damage on self builders and architectural technicians in the process. He protects the state not it's citizens with the mock pretence only of improving consumers rights.
    This is just populist political bluster. If you state someone is lying you should at least try and substantiate it. The quoted comment does not do so in any manner as it is your opinion, not fact.


  • Options
    #1020
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Regarding the implementation of these regulation on self builders, the department of Environment are leaving the implementation of the person appointed 'builder' up to the certifier. I have been told this after querying the misleading guidelines on several council websites (as linked here previously). They are presuming that certifiers will interpret the code of practice as requiring a competent builder against self-builders. The basis for doing this is that if there is a problem down the line with a self-builder house, the person who agreed to certify it can be held responsible as they were clearly entering into a contract with a person who was not proven competent.
    The conclusion of this is that for the time being self builders can continue if they can find a certifier willing to take a chance on certifying their project.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    wirehairmax
    Registered Users Posts: 678 ✭✭✭wirehairmax


    DOCARCH wrote: »

    Imagine builders doing CPD! :)

    Hopefully no more builders telling me to my face, on site, 'ahh...fcuk you and your buidling regulations...I've been doin' this way since before you were born'. :p
    Sort of like this " architect" and so many more like him up and down the country. It's not just builders who need to sharpen up.
    http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057156993/1/#post89200764
    The vast majority of "architects" have an awful lot of catching up to do. Too many are far too interested in how a building looks and not how it functions.
    The new regulations are coming, simple as! All the whining and moaning from architects and self-builders is not going to change that. Seems to me the only group who are just getting on with it are the good contractors and the CIF who see this as an opportunity to distance themselves from the crap that was thrown up (and signed off as compliant ) a few years ago.
    All the scaremongering about fees is over the top too. Contractors fees are not going to rocket overnight for some extra paperwork. As pscs, a contractor is obligated under law to assemble, maintain and handover a safety file to the client once a project is complete. As built drawings, msds's and certificates form the central part of any safety file. Some more subcontractor certificates and a declaration by the main contractor is not going to adds tens of thousands as claimed here a while ago.
    If anything the riai are making sure the public know how much this sudden "extra" responsibility is going to cost and also proving by default that an "opinion" on compliance was never worth the paper it was written on.
    Time to move on now and get with the changes.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement