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 Regulations Amendment Draft 2012

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,167 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    perhaps it is worth re posting this excerpt from the amendment
    Notwithstanding the responsibilities of other person/s or firms/s in relation to the works, I accept responsibility and legal liability for the inspection of all works as necessary to ensure that they are neither defective nor contravene any requirements of the Second Schedule of the Building Regulations, as applicable to the building works concerned.


  • Options
    #63
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    No, the secret is in the title of the Thread......Draft..........

    nothing is written, yet,

    I think you are all overreacting ( understandibly ) to a Draft which is unworkable.
    The Insurance Co's alone can kill this as it is written, by stating cover will not be available.
    in the meantime reasonable suggestions will probably be accepted leading to a consensus


  • Options
    #64
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,167 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    martin, if previous "draft" amendments are anything to go by there will be NO change in the final draft.... these submission stages are just lip service.

    for example, they publish this amendment PRIOR to working out the content of a code of practice of inspection... an absolutely VITAL piece of information needed to assess the workability of the proposal


  • Options
    #65
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    well you may be right syd, leading to a situation where certifyers have no insurance and so issue no Certs. So we are all out of work.

    So buy a disposable mobile, work under the radar, don't register, forget VAT etc, only work for ''Johnny Cash''

    I'm sure reason will prevail. The arguments on this Thread alone are food for thought,........I Hope.


  • Options
    #66
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    I know the RIAI have been in detailed discussions with many of the PI companies/insurers and so far the opinion is that if the D(r)aft Regulations are implemeneted (as currently drafted), quite simply, what the certifier is being asked to do is uninsureable. In addition, a 'Certificate', as opposed to an Opinion, is an entirely different matter and carries a statutory effect.

    The way I see it is that this proposed amendment lets the builders further off the hook! The fall guy being the certifier.

    Bear in mind that in the construction, say of a house, you could have up to 2000 people (or more) involved if you look at it from the point of view of the people who manfacture the materials, roof tiles, concrete blocks, process timber, quarry and supply aggregate, etc., etc., etc. and then all the people and trades who go one to use the materials to build the project......and they wnat one person to certify and take responsibility for all that.....what planet are the guys and gals in the DOE living on.....seriously!

    They (i.e. the men in the shinny pants/pen pushers) simply need to implement current legislation and get out there, inspect construction and take some responsibility (along with a few others).

    As said before, the threat of random (and ruthless) inspection maybe enough to drastically improve building regulation compliance alone plus some other measures including the registration of building contractors which would make compulsory that builders carry an equivalent of PI insurance (not just your regular builder insurances).

    Take for example tax and the Revenue Commissioners - I have been in business as a sole trader for 12 years now. In those 12 years I have never missed a VAT payment deadline or even considered any sort of funny business with regard to my tax payments for fear of an audit by Revenue - I have never had one, but, the threat is always there.

    Just to say that I have no issue whatsoever with improving the current regeime/system but there has to be collective responsibility on everybodies part.

    Rant over (for now). :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    All interested parties please note Meeting with DOE on Tuesday next
    did anyone go to this meeting?


  • Options
    #68
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    BryanF wrote: »
    did anyone go to this meeting?

    All I heard about that meeting was that so far they've had more submissions on this proposed amendment than they've ever had for anything else!


  • Options
    #69
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    I don't attempt to cover all that was discussed and I only give my own interpretation subject to my own understanding and prejudices but the salient points that stick in my mind are

    DOE did not consult with any providers of PI cover and its seems that no matter how many contributors made the point that

    a) no provider will cover the liability - at least not @ sustainable premia
    b) one can't be covered to break the law

    the officials appeared to be benignly incredulous

    So they stated on the one hand that they were “leaving it up” the professions to talk to insurers whilst turning the deaf ear to these same professionals when reporting back what insurers have been telling them.

    The point was made that the " I and I alone - no matter the actions/inactions of others" gist of the proposed Completion Cert is fantastically onerous and in reality unworkable was made over and over. But they just couldn’t or wouldn’t get it, falling back on rhetoric like " but this is drawn from the 1990 Act , we are only trying to improve the situation "

    To me , they know their way around the texts and documents they publish very well without seeming to understand the affect they have beyond the Custom House.

    In fairness they stated that the yet to be published Code of Practice ( requiring another SI + consultation process ) will be an opportunity to address this "I and I alone" aspect. Myself I don't see how it could i.e. how could any Code remove those implications if passed into law?

    For any Architectural Technicians concerned that they are excluded ( dodging a bullet perhaps) from these provisions the DOE are not actively considering revising the proposals to include them. Despite the fact being made several times that this is arguably a particular profession whose training most naturally lends itself to the role of inspector/certifier with respect to building regulations. Not all receiving this may not agree - and neither do the DOE its seems.

    The Country is too broke to go the UK route and have LA's inspect and certify. That was not up for discussion . Some tried to make the point that a system could be put in place similar to SEAI / BER Assessors regime i.e. a national agency to administer an inspection / certification process , maintaining a register of persons Inspectors /Certifiers who in turn could rely on supporting documentation to determine their decisions and with those Inspectors /Certifiers facing random audits . But this seemed not to impress.

    One contributor stated that the system being proposed now is very like the Australian system. Down under , according to this contributor , Certifiers have actually been professionals drawn from the legal profession , happy to take the fees and being more than comfortable to argue the toss in court if things go wrong. Building professionals being sidelined! ( Mellor ? is this what you’ve found ? )

    One thing I would stress to anyone remotely interested - based on last nights encounter to me they seem to have their minds made up.

    They have received 30 responses so far - you may care to add to that number.


  • Options
    #70
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    One contributor stated that the system being proposed now is very like the Australian system. Down under , according to this contributor , Certifiers have actually been professionals drawn from the legal profession , happy to take the fees and being more than comfortable to argue the toss in court if things go wrong. Building professionals being sidelined! ( Mellor ? is this what you’ve found ? )

    AFAIK, the Australian system is a lot more refined (i.e. more sensible and streamlined) than that currently proposed by the DOE.

    I would wholly agree with you SB, that ATs have far better training in technical matters regarding construction than anybody else - to overlook them is crazy?

    Just to say that some architcets are also very good on the technical side (and some very poor) but that's more down to experience on the ground rather than third level education in the technical aspects of construction. No disrespect to engineers, but from my experience, their knowledge of all aspects of construction and the building regulations (in terms on insulation, ventilation, etc.) is limited.

    I suppose the only thing to do at this stage is make a submission and I would urge everybody with a vested interest to make a submission before next Thursday.


  • Options
    #71
    No6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    One contributor stated that the system being proposed now is very like the Australian system. Down under , according to this contributor , Certifiers have actually been professionals drawn from the legal profession , happy to take the fees and being more than comfortable to argue the toss in court if things go wrong. Building professionals being sidelined! ( Mellor ? is this what you’ve found ? )

    I dont think so, I am in the middile of my visa application as I have accecpted a Senior Building Surveyor post in WA, (Building Control Officer essentially), Odd isn't it I am seemingly no longer qualified to certify my own work in Ireland but I will be able to inspect others in OZ!!

    A lot of the compantacies of an Australian Building Surveyor are identical to our skill set!! I do have to do a bit of study to get up to speed on Australian Law and Building Regulations but the core skills are there already. I believe they have a 100% inspection rate too!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    everybody with a vested interest

    This includes any person who may buy , build , rent , lease live in or otherwise use a building .


  • Options
    #73
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    No6 wrote: »
    I dont think so, I am in the middile of my visa application as I have accecpted a Senior Building Surveyor post in WA, (Building Control Officer essentially), Odd isn't it I am seemingly no longer qualified to certify my own work in Ireland but I will be able to inspect others in OZ!!

    A lot of the compantacies of an Australian Building Surveyor are identical to our skill set!! I do have to do a bit of study to get up to speed on Australian Law and Building Regulations but the core skills are there already. I believe they have a 100% inspection rate too!!

    3428610807078058787.jpeg___1_500_1_500_cb94de6a_.png


  • Options
    #74
    beyondpassive
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭beyondpassive


    sinnerboy wrote: »

    One contributor stated that the system being proposed now is very like the Australian system. Down under , according to this contributor , Certifiers have actually been professionals drawn from the legal profession , happy to take the fees and being more than comfortable to argue the toss in court if things go wrong. Building professionals being sidelined! ( Mellor ? is this what you’ve found ? )

    SB, loved your summary afterwards that trying to get our points across to the Dept was 'like punching jelly'. Just to clarify the point on the night.
    In Australia the 'complying development cert applications' can be by either private accredited certifiers or an appointed local authority certifier. The Private certifier companies are surveyor companies. I've been told by some one working in Sydney that they are 'Lawyered up' and pay a heavy retainer to 1 or 2 large legal firms, to ensure their responsibilities and exposure is limited. But ultimately they are acting as agents of the council and carry out the duties of the state. In this regard they are the Architects best friend and the bane of the dodgy builders.

    http://www.accreditedcertifiers.com.au/list.php?s_id=387&l=A


  • Options
    #75
    jblack
    Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    Would the introduction of a statutory requirement for decennial insurance or something similar not be a better idea?

    Shift the risk to an insurance organisation, who actively get involved during the design and construction process to reduce the likelihood of an event.


  • Options
    #76
    beyondpassive
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭beyondpassive


    Colour_Strip_4x4_Web.jpg


  • Options
    #77
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    That's great! :)


  • Options
    #78
    janmc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭janmc


    Article in The Journal


  • Options
    #79
    jblack
    Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭jblack


    Criticism from EU & press mid naughties - kneejerk = GCCC

    No cashflow in downturn - kneejerk = Construction Contracts Bill

    Dept of Finance doesn't like Construction Contracts Bill - kneejerk = ridiculous provisions of non-binding adjudication in public works contracts

    Priory Hall - kneejerk = Building Control (Amendment) Regs.


  • Options
    #80
    No6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    The bit that gets me is that they have decided that Architectural Technologists dont exist!! and where they do will be stamped out and crushed with this new ammendment, And here was me thinking slavery was abolished!!:eek:


  • Options
    #81
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    • is the CIAT making a submission?
    • is the RIAIT (or whatever) making submission?
    • are any of the 6 (i think) colleges where AT's have been churned out over the last few years making submission?
    • should we just leave the country? is this a hint slap in the face or what?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Corkblowin
    Registered Users Posts: 622 ✭✭✭Corkblowin


    BryanF wrote: »
    • is the CIAT making a submission?
    • is the RIAIT (or whatever) making submission?
    • are any of the 6 (i think) colleges where AT's have been churned out over the last few years making submission?
    • should we just leave the country? is this a hint slap in the face or what?

    CIAT have met with the DoE, are making a submission, and have circulated a template to all members to submit their own.
    The RIAI AT Committee have been raising it, but I'm guessing they would only be permitted to make a submission with the approval of the board (good luck getting that!)
    Not sure about the colleges .
    It's a kick in the privates alright - really highlights to me how little the RIAI care & how we can expect no help in getting registration of the title. To the CIAT for me!!!!


  • Options
    #83
    beyondpassive
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭beyondpassive


    No6 wrote: »
    The bit that gets me is that they have decided that Architectural Technologists dont exist!! and where they do will be stamped out and crushed with this new ammendment, And here was me thinking slavery was abolished!!:eek:

    Very emotive language, look at it rationally. Architectural Technologists would come under the title 'Surveyor' and can use their qualifications or professional memberships to become members of RICS. Agree the Arch tech is best placed to handle compliance with regs opinions, but the technologist is a very difficult to define on a statutory basis. The technologist within a registered Architectural practice has a role as a technical architect, or in private practice as a Buildability or Energy Consultant. The problem is that many architectural Technologists provide full design services, while some have absorbed some aesthetic design skills, the technologist offering full design services puts them in conflict with the mission of the RIAI. While I understand that surveyors, engineers and even tech drawing teachers provide full design services also and many registered Architects have designed many carbuncles, the reality is that the Arch tech would find being recognised under the Surveyor title an easier route to being able to offer certification, than seeking statutory recognition as an architectural discipline. So I'm joining CIAT and RICS.

    My submission tomorrow will seek to get the professional Technologist recognised in the amendment to the building control act, but i doubt if it will be taken on board.


  • Options
    #84
    No6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    BryanF wrote: »
    • is the CIAT making a submission?
    • is the RIAIT (or whatever) making submission?
    • are any of the 6 (i think) colleges where AT's have been churned out over the last few years making submission?
    • should we just leave the country? is this a hint slap in the face or what?
    CIAT are making two submissions, one from Central Office in London and one from the ROI Center Comittee. They have also issued a guidance note to individual members for their submissions.

    The RIAI AT member of Council was trying to get the council to include AT'S in their submission. I havn't heard if they will or not yet, personally having seen some of the correspondance eminating from no 8 Merrion sq, I would doubt it very much.

    I have no information on the colleges but in my opinion if the draft goes through without AT's they might as well close down as there is no future in the industry here.

    I am leaving anyways but I'd like to know I could have continue in my chosen career if I come back!!


  • Options
    #85
    No6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    beyondpassive wrote: »
    Very emotive language, look at it rationally. Architectural Technologists would come under the title 'Surveyor' and can use their qualifications or professional memberships to become members of RICS. Agree the Arch tech is best placed to handle compliance with regs opinions, but the technologist is a very difficult to define on a statutory basis. The technologist within a registered Architectural practice has a role as a technical architect, or in private practice as a Buildability or Energy Consultant. The problem is that many architectural Technologists provide full design services, while some have absorbed some aesthetic design skills, the technologist offering full design services puts them in conflict with the mission of the RIAI. While I understand that surveyors, engineers and even tech drawing teachers provide full design services also and many registered Architects have designed many carbuncles, the reality is that the Arch tech would find being recognised under the Surveyor title an easier route to being able to offer certification, than seeking statutory recognition as an architectural discipline. So I'm joining CIAT and RICS.

    My submission tomorrow will seek to get the professional Technologist recognised in the amendment to the building control act, but i doubt if it will be taken on board.

    For me to continue in my role in this country and be able to sign off on my own work I have to change my professional title!! Why? I don't want to be an Architect (and I am elligible under TA) or have to become a building Surveyor (well not here anyways!!:D) I am equally if not more than competant to sign off on building regulations than a lot of fellow professionals who may happen to be on certain registers.


  • Options
    #86
    Supertech
    Registered Users Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Supertech


    beyondpassive wrote: »
    Very emotive language, look at it rationally. Architectural Technologists would come under the title 'Surveyor' and can use their qualifications or professional memberships to become members of RICS. Agree the Arch tech is best placed to handle compliance with regs opinions, but the technologist is a very difficult to define on a statutory basis. The technologist within a registered Architectural practice has a role as a technical architect, or in private practice as a Buildability or Energy Consultant. The problem is that many architectural Technologists provide full design services, while some have absorbed some aesthetic design skills, the technologist offering full design services puts them in conflict with the mission of the RIAI. While I understand that surveyors, engineers and even tech drawing teachers provide full design services also and many registered Architects have designed many carbuncles, the reality is that the Arch tech would find being recognised under the Surveyor title an easier route to being able to offer certification, than seeking statutory recognition as an architectural discipline. So I'm joining CIAT and RICS.

    My submission tomorrow will seek to get the professional Technologist recognised in the amendment to the building control act, but i doubt if it will be taken on board.
    I don't agree. There's no threat to architectural design from this legislation. What is needed is a statement that AT's are competent in the area of building regulations. This doesn't relate to planning, or architectural design or any of the other issues that have bogged this debate down for decades. It simply relates to a statement of support for the role of the professional architectural technologist, within the RIAI, bound by a code of conduct. CIAT will advance their own arguments, and rightly so. However, it is ridiculous that an organisation which established the profession in this country, and accredits third level courses, and has an AT membership category refuses to acknowledge that membership's core competence.


  • Options
    #87
    No6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    Supertech wrote: »
    I don't agree. There's no threat to architectural design from this legislation. What is needed is a statement that AT's are competent in the area of building regulations. This doesn't relate to planning, or architectural design or any of the other issues that have bogged this debate down for decades. It simply relates to a statement of support for the role of the professional architectural technologist, within the RIAI, bound by a code of conduct. CIAT will advance their own arguments, and rightly so. However, it is ridiculous that an organisation which established the profession in this country, and accredits third level courses, and has an AT membership category refuses to acknowledge that membership's core competence.
    I couldn't agree more!!


  • Options
    #88
    beyondpassive
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭beyondpassive


    Supertech wrote: »
    . What is needed is a statement that AT's are competent in the area of building regulations. ..... a statement of support for the role of the professional architectural technologist, within the RIAI, bound by a code of conduct.


    Do you seriously think the Institute of Architects would make a recommendation that the Act recognises technologists as a registered Building Profession Title. (The 2007 Building Control Act provides for registration of the titles of “Architect”, “Quantity Surveyor” and “ Building Surveyor”. The registration scheme is administered by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and the Society of Chartered Surveyors.)

    Would they let self employed Technologists with, as they see it, no design training and no Part 3 Irish professional practice exams, compete with their small registered design practices? Absolutely not. Its bad enough for them that surveyors and engineers are doing the design work on the majority of one-off's. It has always been about design, as they see it 7 years of design training sets them apart form technologists. Even though this is about building regs, the cert is the only card left for architects to distinguish themselves from other Architectural designers.

    There is already scope within the Act for technologists to be recognised as Building Surveyors. Why would we even consider asking 'an institute of Architects' to promote technologists on a par with their core membership. The surveyor route is the path of least resistance. I would like to think that they would clarify their position but hold out very little hope.


  • Options
    #89
    beyondpassive
    Registered Users Posts: 558 ✭✭✭beyondpassive


    Just had confirmation that the RIAI submission Does not include any proposals for a role for Technologists as certifiers. Please ensure that if you haven’t done so already, that you make your own submissions to the Dept of Env before the deadline at 5:30pm today in order to have your concerns heard and understood.

    Email - buildingstandards@environ.ie


  • Options
    #90
    Supertech
    Registered Users Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Supertech


    It's not about whether they would do it, it's about whether they should do it.

    I don't buy this 'Building Surveyors' route. In any case, there is no defined route for AT's to become building surveyors. What makes you think the SCSI want us any more than the RIAI does ? To follow your logic, why would we ask the institute representing Surveyors to include us ? They don't see us as surveyors either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,167 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    i dont consider myself as a surveyor.. why should I?

    it makes no sense to me that someone who carries a degree in spatial planning and is a SCIS member should be considered as being more appropriate to comment on the compliance of building regulations than I am.


Advertisement