Building Control Regulations Amendment Draft 2012

fclauson wrote: »

I do not understand an inspection system where the garage mechanic is allowed to sign off his vehical as being road worthy

Well thats pretty much how it is unfortunately

I am drafting a response to this consultation and useing the analergy of the NCT testing regime

NCT can earn no money out of saying you do or do not have a doggy headlight - they do not need to know how a head light works, the do not need to know how to fix the head light -they just check that for a given set of parametres that it is working correctly

the inspection system for buildings should be the same

Chris Arch wrote: »

My experience is that at completion and during construction, they thanks God to have used my services for inspecting and certifying the works while those who did not use my services for this purpose simply keep their tails between their legs... Full of regrets...

No praise like self praise, eh? :pac:

Chris Arch wrote: »

we may be stripped from our rights to practice due to corrupted institutes and other professional associations

Please post links to show where these bodies were found guilty of corruption in the courts or withdraw the allegation.

According to the draft regs, are Civil Engineers allowed certify or is it limited to people who are Chartered? It would appear to relate to Section 7 listed Engineers which would mean chartered.

Sir

I have read your proposed changed to the building control act and believe it is missing the opportunity to radically shake up the whole of the building control process –in actual fact you are trying to fix something which is totally totally broken by the sticky plaster approach – “cover it up and I am sure it will get better soon!”. The under lying system is broken, is not fit for purpose, fails to deliver and needs a total overhaul.

I speak as someone who is currently building a new property.

Specifically – the new proposed inspection regime does not fix any of the current issues in the system – its reliant on using a number of registered individuals from a very limited subset of professions associated with the construction sector who significantly were “supposed” to be doing this already – and importantly from a group that has not been trained or tested in the process of inspection.

If I reflect on my own build – a bungalow in North Wexford being built to Passive standard– I have the following just to get the building built to regulations (i.e. not to do internal decor or decoration)
an Architect
a Chartered engineer
a thermal performance consultant,
a renewables consultant,
a technical architect,
a heating engineer,
a plumber,
a ventilation engineer
a window specialist,
a landscape specialist,
a certified electrician,
a certified passive house designer,
a lighting consultant
a main contractor,
a site foreman
various sub contractors – all with excellent experience in their field
and myself who is maniacal for detail and ensuring everything is correct (I am paying all these folks, I am going to live there for the next 30 years, it has to be done as well as possible !!!)

Each of these people I have employed have a speciality or skill my build needs but none are an overall expert on all elements of the build. In many cases it’s been me in conjunction with each of the team members around their speciality and the internet which has got to the bottom of a specific regulation, a British Standard, a BBA or NSAI cert, a CE cert, a manufacturer’s guideline, the law, a TGD definition or a reference to a foreign TGD which contains more up to date information than the Irish ones.

To assume that from this list only the Architect and the Chartered Engineer will be able to “certify” my build just does not make sense. For example typically an architect knows nothing of the electrical regulations, ventilation regulations, window technology, garden planting, lighting design, heating design, thermal performance modelling, or how to physically lay one brick on top of another and hence they will still have to rely on others to provide the appropriate certificates and confirmations that the build is built correctly – and then will only offer an “opinion” that everything has been complied with which leaves the client still open to being culpable for non compliance. Remember “Under the Act of 1990 responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations is placed first and foremost on the owner” despite employing every nature of expert to help them achieve that compliance.

Lets move to an analogy to demonstrate the issues with what you are proposing – the current NCT car testing system here in Ireland is managed via a set of independent inspection stations staffed by people who are trained to inspect.

The individuals in these stations do not need to know how the breaks, lights or engine work, or how to service or fix it, they cannot make money if they find anything wrong, they are not from the car manufacturers or from the car designers and they are not the technicians who built the car. They charge a single uniform fee for the inspection which cannot be argued with by the car owner – it’s a flat rate for which your get a single uniformly implemented inspection program across all the NCT stations in Ireland.

The skills of the NTC staff is to know how to inspect. They need to know what looks/feels/test correctly to a specification and what does not. Underpinning the NCT is a set of training, examination, testing and audits which ensure that the service is consistent and rigorous with reporting, key performance indicators (KPIs) and data gathering to back it up and this makes it transparent to the public to show that it is fair and trustworthy. The concept of an “opinion” that your car is roadworthy or that your paid a varying amount because of what you negotiated with the tester would just be a joke and wholly unacceptable.

Returning to the changes to the proposed building control:
To bring in building control system where the certification process continues to rely upon on the person(s) who designed and specified the build and who are paid for by a varying fee based on what they can negotiate with their client continues to leaves it open to the same abuse of the past and a serious distrust in its execution. We have all seen the court cases where each one of the professionals involved blames another and no one is ultimately culpable. The poor home owner is left with nowhere to go for recourse.

We need an independent, rigorous, no-argument, no-nonsense inspection service. It could be implemented in a similar way to the UK and would be paid for via planning fees etc and hence be self funding and at no additional burden to the tax payer. In actual fact the suggested fees of €1000 to €3000 called out in the draft proposal which currently a client would have to “negotiate” with their professional and which would be open to so much discord would more than be sufficient to provide this service. It would show better value for money to the client, be non negotiable, and provide a belief that they were actually getting a service which was valuable, trust worthy and independent. A negotiable compliance fee is unworkable (imagine negotiating with the NCT station that if you pay a few euro more your car will be signed off despite it having breaks which do not work properly and a head lights which dazzles the oncoming cars)

If we look at the current construction environment in Ireland :
On the negative side Ireland has become world renowned (unfortunately) for its Ghost estates, its failure to ensure what was built was built right, its total lack of building control (look at the past number of inspections carried out which in some counties is ZERO), its lack of implementation of standards in builds and its reliance on re-written technical guidance documents from other European countries.

On the positive side Ireland is becoming a worldwide hub for low energy and Passive House expertise with this a significant number of self-builders implementing builds which far exceed current building regs. (My own will be certified passive by an independent body who care neither if its passive or not – but that it meets a specific build standard and performance criteria). These skills are being exported worldwide by way its professionals – who importantly are not necessary registered with organisations which will be required by the changes in the act to carry out the new building control inspections – but who have a passion and drive to ensure what gets built gets built right first time and is built to the very highest standard.

one quick comment - none of the professionals I have employed are implicated in any way by my previous post - all of them are extremly professional, good, decent, honest, trustworthy, knowledgable and hard working

and one of the just one the "Green Residential Award"

While I totally agree that reform is long overdue unfortunately all the document does is add paperwork and further remove responsibility from Local Authorities.

There is a lot of talk here about "proper" inspections and certification. Professionals can only certify to a defined degree (usually visual inspection) there is no guarantee unless your on site every day of construction (this is why site engineers exist on large projects). Adding an independent organisation will not improve this. Homebond / Premier are essentially a form of this but I would take a report from and engineer over their formulated crap any day. The issue for professionals is payment for a service; most likely a standard house requires 6-10 inspections (about a weeks work) and another week of detailing to ensure good construction.

With regard to the requirement to have qualified architects signing certs it is wrong. Local authorities should have lists (similar to site assessments) otherwise most large firms will send the cheapest employee to the site and just get an architect to sign loads of forms at the end of the week. Engineers and even technicians have far more technical training with regard to requirements.

Anybody have a copy of Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Building Works??

RockyTwoArms wrote: »

Anybody have a copy of Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Building Works??

You probably have a better chance of finding the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow :pac:

I agree with a number of points raised in a number of interesting posts above. We must all endevour to make a personal submission on the Template provided, before the 24th May deadline. I believe AT's are now fighting for the survival of their profession.

I am not comfortable with reference to NCT as it a yearly test, it is run by a private company and some NCT operators were investigated by PrimeTime Investigates on RTE. This report resulted in a number of inspectors being disiplined by the Company.

I believe we have a number of excellent examples - the UK Building Control is foremost in my mind. But there is an excellent Irish Inspectorate with a great reputation - The HSA.

The HSA is a national organisation, it has regional offices, it can investigate tips from the public and visit any workplace. Its Inspectors make unanounced unexpected visits / inspections.

The HSA has clout, respect and real teeth. HSA Inspectors can visit a site, take photo's, interview staff, collect evidence and best of all the Inspector can prosecute.

I'd be in favour of Inspectors like the HSA Inspectors at each L.A or in each County office. They would visit site like in the UK and would have the power to prosecute.