Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

strongback · 08-02-2014 3:46am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

and if you dont believe it here's the head of housing in the CIF on a podcast recently talking about the demise of the self-builder:

http://media.radiokerry.ie/mediamanager/embed/player/podcasts/9/item/17585

There's a lot of jockeying for position going on, The CIF are obviously going to try to generate more work for their members. They should really be concentrating on getting their new register of contractors filled and then training them.

strongback · 08-02-2014 4:19am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Self-builders are the silent majority here- over 60% of all housing completed are self-builds. The average home will cost €5k more to build with additional paperwork under SI.9 with no consumer benefit. The average self-build will cost €23k more under SI.9. It's a complete disgrace- the CIF will have 5,000 more homes to build at the expense of ordinary citizens doing their best trying to maximise their finances. They will be getting a €115m windfall out o the self-builders come march. Business as usual....

Self builders are really only the silent majority because there has been practically nothing happening in the house building sector for five or six years. I've notice a few new housing estates under construction in the last few months so the 60% figure will be less this year.

I don't agree there won't be any consumer benefit. I think better houses will be built with fewer problems. Self builders are poor when it comes to compliance, in fact I would say certifying self built house will be seen as the type of work designers are least interested in as they have to work with untrained people. Nobody wants to sign their name to a house if they don't trust the builders competence.

I think the figures being quoted for professionals fees may be misleading. Has it been explained why a contractor built house will cost an extra €5000 while a self build will cost an extra €23,000.

It's difficult to say what the extra fees will be, the market will dictate that. The extra cost is in preparing construction level drawings in my view. There has always been the cost of site visits as the bank required these for stage payments. My view is when it all settles down the cost of the construction drawings on standard house builds will be nowhere near €23K. My guess off the top of my head is the cost of the construction drawings will be in the range of 2.5% to 4% of the budget on say a €200,000 self build. Inspection visits couldn't be much more €250 each and some practices will do these for considerable less. A problem can be that extra site inspections are required on a self build because the self builder is learning on the job.

strongback · 08-02-2014 4:40am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

ordinary people will commence self-builds out of financial necessity,
.

When I have read t the above view it doesn't sit right with me. I have seen the same thing expressed by different people quite a few times. As far as I'm concerned anyone who gets to build their own house is living the dream. And they are not paupers.

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 10:22am

There is a difficulty here. Unfortunately due to conflicting interpretations by the department, the minister, stakeholders such as the riai and the cif on the transition status of self builders from march 1st till the introduction of a mandatory buildrrs register in 2015, they are unsure as to whether they can still occupy the role of builder.

All parties agree with the introduction of the mandatory register self building will cease. The question is under si9 will it cease this march. The iasob quite reasonably have not issues any conclusion on this pending written clarification jointly from the departmet and the monister, and the current builders completion cert being removed and replaced in si9. Essentially a watertight guarantee for their members. Anything less and they would be doing their members a disservice. The site is well worth a visit.

Re interpretations of regs by certifiers yes previous poster is correct there are grey areas in tgd and indeed conflicts- transition arrangements and conflicts in tgds were the subject of a presentation by maria melia at a building control officers association conference in may 2012. She highlighter a number of these (part l, part m etc). Previously professionals could qualify opinions on compliance. The critiscism of si9 (previously si80) is that there is no provision for these grey areas in the new legislation and the specific wording is essentially a "guarantee" that works are in compliance. Very diferent and senior council advice obtained by architects and engineers (mcdonald and ralston opinions) all concur the wording is difficult and as a result may end up causing professional indemnity insurance as being unobtainable. So very difficult for professionals undertaking roles.

The riai on 15th january formally wrote to minister hogan requestind deferral of si9 as legislation would do little for buildin standards and was not i. The interests of consumers. Priory hall residents, pytite panel report, national consumer agency ria submissions in 2012 all agree si9 is not fit for purpose.

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 10:28am

Here is another boost iff bregs blog post. the figures if €5k for professional fees and €18k for builders costs on a €180k project are conservative. Preliminary estimates by riai and iei are in excess of these. The typical profile of a self builder can be seen on the iasob website- they appear ordinary people who otherwise would not be able to affird to build their own house. Self building is quite onerous and is not something to be attempted lightly. For most it is not a hobby but rather a financial necessity. Extract off bregs blog below:

"Under SI.9 established builders must now be used in all residential projects over 40SqM. If a self-builder elects to do this role they will be deemed not compliant with the building regulations and may not be able to re-finance or sell their house later on. How much extra will a self-builder have to pay now under this new regime?

Recent estimates from professional sources suggest the extra professional fees for SI.9 would be in the region of €5000 for engineers, building surveyors and architects. However these are only extra professional charges.

On a typical €180,000 house a contractor’s “management fee” would range from between 5- 10% of the construction cost. There are also preliminary costs (scaffolding, site facilities) along with other costs. A conservative estimate for using an established contractor would be €18000. So the total cost of SI.9 from March 1st for a self-builder (professional fees + contractor costs) could be €23,000 or 12.8% of the total build cost. A huge additional cost for a sector trying to get value for money.

For 5,000 self-builders this year alone the extra cost to for these ordinary people building their own homes could be €115 million euro.

Key stakeholders and professions involved in the formulation of SI.9 have called for deferral of the legislation stating that there will be no benefit to us, the consumer. Under SI.9 the industry will remain self-regulated. €115m extra for no benefit- self-builders are the silent majority affected. That is a lot of votes in the next local and general election. Politicians better take notice.

For anyone contemplating doing a self-build before 1st March 2014 please visit the Irish Association of Self-Builders here: iasob

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 11:04am

strongback wrote: »

Very few houses require anything other than standard details that comply with the minimum standards of the regs as set out in the guidance documents.

You condemn yourself as unfit to be certifier with these words. In my eyes. Not Hogans however , sadly.

strongback wrote: »

BTW nothing is stopping a self builder building a 40m2+ extension.

Other then potential negative consequences with respect to future conveyancing if S1 9 is not followed.

strongback wrote: »

It's still black and white.

No you are arguing black IS white.

The TGD's to the building regulations are a curious splicing of building science and law. One strand ever expanding and developing arising from research and development the other too arising out of the ever infinite potential for varying interpretations of the written word as it applies to varying circumstances. It is intrinsically grey and when you say

strongback wrote: »

This is nothing new and the new legislation won't change it.

You ignore the fact that we have moved from sign off documents being in essence an Opinion , to becoming statements of Certainty. But you know this and are disingenuously subverting the thread by alleging others of being semantic.

strongback wrote: »

When some people are listening to Joe and Pat I'll be designing building and signing certs.

Well quite. If I had the benefit of a new law that disenfranchised a body of my competition , tended to force the market in my direction , which law was shaped by my PI industry to limit my liabilities , I too would be so smug.

jonniebgood1 · 08-02-2014 11:09am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

The riai on 15th january formally wrote to minister hogan requestind deferral of si9 as legislation would do little for buildin standards and was not i. The interests of consumers. Priory hall residents, pytite panel report, national consumer agency ria submissions in 2012 all agree si9 is not fit for purpose.

The RIAI have broadly welcomed the new regulations although identifying some gaps - http://www.riai.ie/images/uploads/INFORMATION_PAPER_1_ON_BUILDING_REGULATIONS_1_MAY_2013_FINALVERSION.pdf

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Here is another boost iff bregs blog post. the figures if €5k for professional fees and €18k for builders costs on a €180k project are conservative. Preliminary estimates by riai and iei are in excess of these. The typical profile of a self builder can be seen on the iasob website- they appear ordinary people who otherwise would not be able to affird to build their own house. Self building is quite onerous and is not something to be attempted lightly. For most it is not a hobby but rather a financial necessity. Extract off bregs blog below:

"Under SI.9 established builders must now be used in all residential projects over 40SqM. If a self-builder elects to do this role they will be deemed not compliant with the building regulations and may not be able to re-finance or sell their house later on. How much extra will a self-builder have to pay now under this new regime?

Recent estimates from professional sources suggest the extra professional fees for SI.9 would be in the region of €5000 for engineers, building surveyors and architects. However these are only extra professional charges.

On a typical €180,000 house a contractor’s “management fee” would range from between 5- 10% of the construction cost. There are also preliminary costs (scaffolding, site facilities) along with other costs. A conservative estimate for using an established contractor would be €18000. So the total cost of SI.9 from March 1st for a self-builder (professional fees + contractor costs) could be €23,000 or 12.8% of the total build cost. A huge additional cost for a sector trying to get value for money.

For 5,000 self-builders this year alone the extra cost to for these ordinary people building their own homes could be €115 million euro.

Key stakeholders and professions involved in the formulation of SI.9 have called for deferral of the legislation stating that there will be no benefit to us, the consumer. Under SI.9 the industry will remain self-regulated. €115m extra for no benefit- self-builders are the silent majority affected. That is a lot of votes in the next local and general election. Politicians better take notice.

For anyone contemplating doing a self-build before 1st March 2014 please visit the Irish Association of Self-Builders here: http://www.iaosb.com/"

Extra costs is not a good enough argument against the new controls. The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 11:17am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.

The result will be less homes built. Less bad homes you might say . Arguable.
More people without homes though - most probably.

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 11:53am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The RIAI have broadly welcomed the new regulations although identifying some gaps - http://www.riai.ie/images/uploads/INFORMATION_PAPER_1_ON_BUILDING_REGULATIONS_1_MAY_2013_FINALVERSION.pdf

Extra costs is not a good enough argument against the new controls. The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.

Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 12:20pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

The distressed property owners ( I am now thinking Priory Hall / pyrite affected house owner ) will in future be able to approach the local authority who will be happy to sell them certifications and supporting documents and drawings which the new law obliges them to retain. With that the distressed owners will be able if they have the money to engage in a legal process. Future governments and future local authorities will by virtue of Hogans law be easier able to distance themselves from the issue.

strongback · 08-02-2014 12:28pm

4Sticks wrote: »

You condemn yourself as unfit to be certifier with these words. In my eyes. Not Hogans however , sadly.

Other then potential negative consequences with respect to future conveyancing if S1 9 is not followed.

No you are arguing black IS white.

The TGD's to the building regulations are a curious splicing of building science and law. One strand ever expanding and developing arising from research and development the other too arising out of the ever infinite potential for varying interpretations of the written word as it applies to varying circumstances. It is intrinsically grey and when you say

You ignore the fact that we have moved from sign off documents being in essence an Opinion , to becoming statements of Certainty. But you know this and are disingenuously subverting the thread by alleging others of being semantic.

Well quite. If I had the benefit of a new law that disenfranchised a body of my competition , tended to force the market in my direction , which law was shaped by my PI industry to limit my liabilities , I too would be so smug.

To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on that concept.

The majority of the points you keep regurgitating have been dealt with in the new wording and that is why Engineers Ireland, The Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland and the RIAI have accepted the it and are preparing members for the 1st March. What does that tell you?

Focus on the real issue that effect designers, builders and self builders and stop muddying the waters, experienced professional are not expecting the world to stop, they know there will be teething issues but these will get ironed out This isn't politics and nobody wants it to be. This is how we earn our living.

Let's be realistic here the construction industry is not going to be killing itself chasing after 6300 self builders in the hope of making a living. There has never been a lot control placed on self builders and I imagine in time it will revert back to this. In other words nobody is that bothered with self builders especially the DOE. Self builders didn't sue the government when they had a problem.

strongback · 08-02-2014 12:31pm

4Sticks wrote: »

The result will be less homes built. Less bad homes you might say . Arguable.
More people without homes though - most probably.

There will be more houses built this year. Anyone working in construction can see a modest pick up in the industry.

strongback · 08-02-2014 12:38pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

Self builders were not subject to the most stringent control up to now.

Is the argument self builders don't want to be regulated as it costs money in fees?

That's what it sounds like.

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 12:45pm

strongback wrote: »

Let's be realistic here the construction industry is not going to be killing itself chasing after 6300 self builders .... nobody is that bothered with self builders ....

You fit in SO well in this particular forum , don't you. Puts all your "contributions into context.

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 12:50pm

strongback wrote: »

Engineers Ireland, The Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland and the RIAI have accepted the it and are preparing members for the 1st March. What does that tell you?

They perceive "business as usual" as far as they are concerned. Nothing more than that and certainly not that they believe the Hogans stated principal aim of better buildings / consumer protection is going to be achieved. :rolleyes:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYY0-JjycRZxBRJDXGhB1RA7y_X9YhGvoHvnqOzHlYsrsk9XST77UP1RcP

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYY0-JjycRZxBRJDXGhB1RA7y_X9YhGvoHvnqOzHlYsrsk9XST77UP1RcP

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 12:52pm

strongback wrote: »

There will be more houses built this year.

2013 was a record low. Nice crystal ball you have there re 2014 house completion figures

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 12:53pm

strongback wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on that concept.

I am just postal worker , don't expect too much from me now .

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 1:03pm

strongback wrote: »

Self builders were not subject to the most stringent control up to now. Is the argument self builders don't want to be regulated as it costs money in fees? That's what it sounds like.

My read is that self builders would for the most part probably come to accept the imposition of a tighter inspection regime by Certifiers. Certainly the lady in the radio interview link a couple of posts back said as much. I have enough faith in most self builders that over time the benefit in terms of quality control would help them see fees spent on inspections and certifications as money well spent and not money wasted , sadly in my opinion the all too common perception now.

The "bridge too far" is having to employ a main contractor. For reasons best expressed by the persons in the linked to radio interviews this is what perturbs self builders most.

jonniebgood1 · 08-02-2014 1:20pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

It is not perfect by a long way. It is however an improvement as there may be some fall back or protection for purchasers against the likes of Priory hall. So Yes, it will deliver some improvements.

jonniebgood1 · 08-02-2014 1:30pm

4Sticks wrote: »

The "bridge too far" is having to employ a main contractor. For reasons best expressed by the persons in the linked to radio interviews this is what perturbs self builders most.

You are so far off the mark that I am not sure if this point is serious?
You don't let a self builder wire their own house so why would you let them manage the whole project with an ever increasing level of complexity such as air tightness or some of the new detailed junction requirements to reduce cold bridging. An improvement is sought in building standards and getting more experienced people involved in a project is a good way of making this improvement. It is certainly an improvement than having someone encounter these types of detailing issues for the first time. With due respect to people who are building their own house it is only natural that if they are not experienced in an area then they are more likely to make an error. Thus their built house will contain more errors than if they were to employ an experienced builder who is registered as competent.

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 2:50pm

I think the point may be missed here. Quite a lot of self builders would not attempt rewiring or doing any of the build- really a self builder occupies the role of main contractor co ordinating sub contractors such as electrician, blockie etc. THere are plenty of farmers all over the country with enough building experience to undertake these main contractor duties. By occupying this role a minimum doscount should be expected on final build costs of around 10% for someone with an aptitude or ability to do this.

It is not an easy task and very time consuming- no one is saying a main contractors wage is for nothing. However for electricians, tradesmen or even "competent professionals" who want to make their money go further and are well able to build their homes si9 would appear to preclude them from doing so

Regarding skills to achieve airtightness and a1 ratings i think an audit of existing established builders and professionals would demonstrate significant upskilling is required. A recent european wide survey of architects the ace survey showed that around 50% of professionals only considered themselves competent to undertake ultra low energy projects.

Si9 is not a set of enhanced performance- led standards, nor is it a new form of independently regulating the construction industry. It is a self declared reinforcement of the existing system of self regulation with particular concentration in the "for sale" speculative market which has yielded the poster children of si9: priory hall and the pyrite scandal. It is all the more remarkable that the recommendations of the government commissioned and endorsed pyrite report and the requests by the priory hall residents were ignored in the design of si9. Their call for an independen system of local authority building inspections. Ultimately what little enhancements given by si9 to our current problematic system will be little return on such a vast cost. Owners still will be left trudging through the high court pursueing redress with no guarantee of success.

A missed opportunity.

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 3:11pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You are so far off the mark that I am not sure if this point is serious?

Welcome back , moderator. But you are the joker here.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You don't let a self builder wire their own house so why would you let them manage the whole project with an ever increasing level of complexity such as air tightness or some of the new detailed junction requirements to reduce cold bridging.

You should listen to your pal strongback , he's been writing certs for 20+ years see

strongback wrote: »

Very few houses require anything other than standard details that comply with the minimum standards of the regs as set out in the guidance documents.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

An improvement is sought in building standards and getting more experienced people involved in a project is a good way of making this improvement. It is certainly an improvement than having someone encounter these types of detailing issues for the first time.

The mandatory involvement of Designer at commencement and Certifier at completion will help address these valid points.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With due respect to people who are building their own house

You say that with your tongue in or out of your cheek ?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

it is only natural that if they are not experienced in an area then they are more likely to make an error. Thus their built house will contain more errors than if they were to employ an experienced builder who is registered as competent.

Many errors can be seen off at design stage as provided for by SI 9 . Errors arising during the build can be addressed by the Certifier carrying out inspections. So why in your own considered opinion - should like in the case of the radio interview - a middle aged electrician not be trusted to be his own contractor .

4Sticks · 08-02-2014 3:15pm

We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 3:19pm

4Sticks wrote: »

We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....

I agree completely the only reason this hasnt kicked off in the media is no one knows about it. From what i have read most td's don know what si9 is let alone what the issues are for self builders or even government capital spend budgets.

The lack of preparedness for this is breathtaking. Watch this space. Fdi investment will slow, capital projects will be delayed etc.

I agree with poster when the penny drops on this it will he a polical disaster far worde than irish water. Euro elections in 15 weeks tic tock...

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 3:28pm

At a certain point all stakeholders, professionals, minister and the department need to read this article, the considered words of our president, and honestly ask will si9 stop this from happening again.

President honours 'tenacity' of Priory Hall residents - Independent.ie
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/president-honours-tenacity-of-priory-hall-residents-29837576.html

We are all in agreement, professionals, contractors and consumers, that out current system of self regulation is defective. Why not fix it properly. The last time we did a comprehensive redesign of building control was in 1992. We have the benefit now of 20years experience of self regulation. Why blindly commit ourselves to another 20 years of the same?

BryanF · 08-02-2014 3:46pm

strongback wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on...

Strongback No more personnal digs. Your opinion on the BCA is welcome, but your not welcome here if you attack any other poster. Take this as your warning

atech · 08-02-2014 6:14pm

BryanF wrote: »

Interesting, please report back on this!!
Where was this and what were the circumstances.

Don't have any more info I'm afraid apart from what was said in that radio interview.

4 sticks linked to the Wednesday interview about the man who had to cancel his self-build; on the Thursday a councillor was on (@ 35mins in) to refute what the man on Wednedsay said. The woman @ 41mins put him right about the director/principal section on the form but he said @ 44.50mins approx that it was discussed in the chamber yesterday and that it was clarified that you could still appoint yourself as builder.

http://www.oceanfm.ie/nwt

Probably just a case of another councillor with only half the facts.

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 6:24pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

Btw the official riai position is that they do not believe si9 will achieve the purpose for which it was intended and si9 should be deferred as a matter of urgency

They have posted the official letter requesting deferral sent to minister hogan on their website dated 15th january and also his 3 line refusal on 16th. I dont believe i am allowed to link into the riai website but it is also ip on the breg blog post. I can likn to that if allowed by mods?

The riai, cif, surveyors and engineers were the stakeholder groups involved with department inrefining si9. If the riai are firmally requesting this legislation to be deferred it should be of great concern to all (whatever ones opinion of the riai is)

BryanF · 08-02-2014 6:50pm

Links to RIAI & bRegs forum are fine

Hairy mellon · 08-02-2014 8:32pm

BryanF wrote: »

Links to RIAI & bRegs forum are fine

Earlier this month the President of the Architects organisation the RIAI wrote to the Department of the Environment requesting a deferral of SI9.

Below is the RIAI letter sent on 15th January 2014 to Minister Hogan. Minster Hogan’s refusal is attached dated 16th January 2014. The new SI9 was subsequently signed by the Minister. The RIAI are a key stakeholder in the formation and implementation of SI9.

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/title-riai-president-call-to-defer-si9-ignored-by-minister/

_____

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments