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

1202123252653

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    interesting opinion piece by 7 past presidents of riai on effectiveness of new regulations

    New or same old building regulations? | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/new-or-same-old-building-regulations-bregs/


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Interesting angle on overview

    I wonder what private group stands to benefit most from regs?

    Winners and Losers: Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulation 2014 (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/winners-and-losers-building-regulations-amendment-regulation-2014-si-9-of-2014/


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Below is the RIAI letter sent on 15th January 2014 to Minister Hogan. Minster Hogan’s refusal is attached dated 16th January 2014.

    Obviously the Minister does not consider the RIAI a key stakeholder. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,046 ✭✭✭archtech


    Code of practice for inspecting and certifying buildings and works has been published. I seen a copy this afternoon and will post a copy once I'm on my PC again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    apparently still vague between company and individual- need to see it but on previous version it was suggested that employees would need to take out separate professional indemnity insurance to cover themselves personally in addition to companies. Would be interesting to see final version.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    back on topic: Olivia Mitchell TD & Tommy Broughan TD to Minister Hogan: The Self-Builder Question?
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-self-builder-question/


  • Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    4Sticks wrote: »
    We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....


    Mod


    Don't post on this thread anymore. We have had enough of your insights.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat



    Mod


    Don't post on this thread anymore. We have had enough of your insights.

    Has there been a rule breach somewhere or is it simply a case of a moderator not liking their opinion challenged?

    This is an extremely pertinent thread with good debate going on in it, please allow all sides to debate their opinions fully.... and should moderator action be necessary for a rule breach, so be it... but censorship because "we have had enough of your insights" is a frankly embarrassing way to try to censor a poster.

    very poor in my opinion.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Has there been a rule breach somewhere or is it simply a case of a moderator not liking their opinion challenged?

    This is an extremely pertinent thread with good debate going on in it, please allow all sides to debate their opinions fully.... and should moderator action be necessary for a rule breach, so be it... but censorship because "we have had enough of your insights" is a frankly embarrassing way to try to censor a poster.

    very poor in my opinion.....

    Mod

    Please don't question mod action on thread. Do so by PM.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,341 ✭✭✭mullingar


    but curious to how

    for enquiries on this see here


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭strongback


    Forum Moderation

    If you are not happy for any reason with the moderation of the forum then you may send a Private Message to one of the modeartors and if this does not address your concerns you should then follow the Dispute Resolution Procedure.

    Do not argue with a mod or dispute his/her instructions on thread. If you have an issue send a Private Message to the moderator .


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    back on topic: Olivia Mitchell TD & Tommy Broughan TD to Minister Hogan: The Self-Builder Question?
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-self-builder-question/

    There is a worrying contradiction well highlighted in link. What is your opinion on this Hairy mellon?

    My view is that if self-builders are allowed nominate themselves (as suggested in the ministers reply) as builders then the whole system as proposed is almost identical to the current system.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    My view is that if self-builders are allowed nominate themselves (as suggested in the ministers reply) as builders then the whole system as proposed is almost identical to the current system.
    the BCA & subsequent COP are at odds with Mr hogans reply

    from the BCA 2014 act
    homeowner:
    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

    builder:
    I confirm that I have been commissioned by the building owner to undertake the works described above and that I am competent to undertake the works concerned. I further under-take to ensure that any persons employed or engaged by me to undertake any of the works involved will be competent to undertake such works.

    I undertake to construct the building or works in accordance with the plans, calculations,specifications, ancillary certificates and particulars

    Having regard to the Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Buildings and Works, or equivalent, I further undertake to cooperate with the inspections set out in the inspection plan prepared by the Assigned Certifier and to take all reasonable steps so as to ensure that I shall certify that the building or works is in compliance with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations insofar as they apply to the building or works
    Building-Control-(Amendment)-Regulations-2014-–-SI-No-9-of-2014


    below from the newly published Code of Practice (COP)
    “Builder” means a competent builder appointed, for purposes of the Building Control Regulations, by the building owner, to build and supervise the works;
    .............
    Building Owners, Designers and Builders are bound by this legal requirement. In undertaking building works, appropriate measures should be taken so that the work is in accordance with the Building Regulations. Designers, Builders and certifiers should exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the exercise of their duties. They and persons assigned by them should be competent for the work they undertake.

    Specifically, the Building Owner should:
    .......
    (c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
    1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
    inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
    of compliance on completion, and
    2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
    specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
    Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
    Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
    for projects consistent with their registration profile.
    .........
    The Builder, appointed by the Building Owner, gives an undertaking to construct, to
    cooperate with the Assigned Certifier and to sign the Certificate of Compliance on
    Completion as required under the Building Control Regulations.

    until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    I agree Bryan but I would fear from the ministers reply that he is edging towards some kind of U-turn even at this stage (transitional arrangements would be the phrase)- elections are near. I wonder has any direction been given to planning authorities on what constitutes an invalid commencement notice, and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    I would fear.........I wonder has any ....... and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?.....
    the BCA & COP are clear as highlighted in the previous post
    until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.
    no more speculation on this matter


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    At the engineers ireland seminar on the 17th january representatives of department and cif consensus view was that a competent builder was soneone with 3 years relevant building experience with tax affairs in order. Anyone not fulfilling these criteria would trigger an inspection by BCA under their risk based analysis software and possible follow up. The risks for owners is that due to inadequate resources this may not happen. The point at which the BCA may intervene may then be on completion, when the completion certification is deemed invalid.

    This should be of great concern as currently there appears to be no retrospective means of obtaining certification and validating submissions if this situation arises.

    Anyone old enough will remember a similar mess after introduction if the fire certificate legislation after stardust. It took anout 10 years to Sort out and regularise the system we have at the moment.

    Previous posters are correct imho and the cop recently released and si9 would appear to quite clear on the matter, irrespective of recent interpretaions by he minister.

    Here is the cop

    http://societyofcharteredsurveyorsireland.newsweaver.com/files/1/39665/69025/4683135/ce9e36ede87a32ec9c2e5c0d/Code%20of%20Practice%20Building%20Control%20Regulations%202014.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭dathi


    i wonder will the role of arch technicians and other disenfranchised professionals going forward be to "lend" technical expertise to builders to enable them to comply with the code of practice, builders role parts c,d,e,f.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    dathi wrote: »
    i wonder will the role of arch technicians and other disenfranchised professionals going forward be to "lend" technical expertise to builders to enable them to comply with the code of practice, builders role parts c,d,e,f.

    The restriction of profession on register for roles of design and assigned certifier would not appear to apply to all other procurement roles. The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance. Typically the "build for sale" sector frequently employed non formally educated persons to complete planing applications, fire certs and dac's where required, and participate in tenders. Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected. The only change would be the requirement to engage suitably qualified competent persons (surveyor, engineer, architect) to do roles of design and assigned certifier only. Planning is totally separate and does not have the same restrictions. Si9 does not mean registration of title as a lot of professiomals believe. The recently cop confirms this.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The restriction of profession on register for roles of design and assigned certifier would not appear to apply to all other procurement roles. The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance. Typically the "build for sale" sector frequently employed non formally educated persons to complete planing applications, fire certs and dac's where required, and participate in tenders. Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected. The only change would be the requirement to engage suitably qualified competent persons (surveyor, engineer, architect) to do roles of design and assigned certifier only. Planning is totally separate and does not have the same restrictions. Si9 does not mean registration of title as a lot of professiomals believe. The recently cop confirms this.

    obviously this model is directly affected if the regulations AND code of practise are to be implemented as they are read.

    as bryanf has posted above:
    the code of practise states:
    Specifically, the Building Owner should:
    (a) ensure that a Fire Safety Certificate and a Disability Access Certificate are
    obtained where required;
    (b) sign a Commencement Notice (or 7 day notice) that is lodged;
    (c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
    1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
    inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
    of compliance on completion, and
    2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
    specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
    Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
    Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
    for projects consistent with their registration profile.

    now, irregardless of what the minister is saying. The regulation and code of practise have it in black and white that a building contractor must be assigned.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I agree Bryan but I would fear from the ministers reply that he is edging towards some kind of U-turn even at this stage (transitional arrangements would be the phrase)- elections are near. I wonder has any direction been given to planning authorities on what constitutes an invalid commencement notice, and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?


    you do realise this is minister Hogan we are talking about..... he will most probably be sent to pasture in Europe by the time elections come around,.

    the phrase "the lady's not for turning" comes to mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I tend to agree with both previous posters

    It is pretty clear to me that a building company must he appointed under si9 as previous poster notes

    Also i think its pretty unlikely hogan will do a u-turn as following poster mentions.

    The conundrum for hogan is that si9 is portrayed as a fix to stop cowboy builders. The register of contractors may fix this. This register requires primary legislation and may be unlikely within 3 years as there is a general election in interim, despite being widely predicted to be introduced in 2015.

    Si9 without some form of visible builders regulation is a joke, a nonsense. Everyine else is regulated except for builders etc. This is Hogan's conundrum.

    That is where the completion cert fudge comes in- it has the same effect as a register- ensuring only tax compliant existing builders can validate builds (restricting citizen's rights in addition). Without this si9 does not do what it set out to do.

    Also not installing comprehensive independen local authority inspections saves the department a few euros. Local authority inspections would allow self-builders to undertake projects like in the UK


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected.
    this has been determined above and until we have proof from a client who has done this there'll be no more chat about, thanks
    The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance.
    this is worrying. how would a certifier have confidence of say M&E packages...


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I tend to agree with both previous posters

    It is pretty clear to me that a building company must he appointed under si9 as previous poster notes

    Also i think its pretty inlikely hogan will do a uturn as following poster mentions.

    Ths conundrum for hogan is har si9 is portrayed as a fix to stop cowboy builders. The register of contractors will fix this. This register requires primary legislation and is unlikely within 3 years as there is a general election in interim.

    Si9 without some form of visible builders regulation is a joke, a nonsense. Everyine else is regulated except for builders etc.

    That is where the completion cert fudge comes in- it has e same effect as a register- ensuring only tax compliant existing builders can validate builds. Without his si9 does not do what it set out to do.

    Also not installing comprehensive independen local authority inspections saves the department a few euros.

    http://cif.ie/news-events/current-news/ciri/

    the CIf have already started consultation with the DOE with the view of having a voluntary registry up and running asap.

    The joining of this registry will become statutory in the future. I think thats where you may be misunderstanding the above. There is no legislation required to set up the registry on a voluntary basis.
    The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 provides for the appointment of competent contractors and builders. Provision will be made for including a member’s CIRI registered number on statutory Commencement Notices for lodgment with Building Control Authorities on and after 1 March 2014.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    you do realise this is minister Hogan we are talking about..... he will most probably be sent to pasture in Europe by the time elections come around,.

    the phrase "the lady's not for turning" comes to mind.
    Syd, Johnny and anyone else from now on we're tightening up the discussion on this thread. to the BCA 2014as written into law. and we're ignoring how much of .... Mr Hogan is. thanks


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BryanF wrote: »
    Syd, Johnny and anyone else from now on we're tightening up the discussion on this thread. to the BCA 2014as written into law. and we're ignoring how much of .... Mr Hogan is. thanks

    ok can i just clarify bryan, should a prospective self builder come on and ask if they have to appoint a building contractor..... what do we do?

    point taken on the minister.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    http://cif.ie/news-events/current-news/ciri/

    the CIf have already started consultation with the DOE with the view of having a voluntary registry up and running asap.

    The joining of this registry will become statutory in the future. I think thats where you may be misunderstanding the above. There is no legislation required to set up the registry on a voluntary basis.

    apologies the intended register will be mandatory and will require primary legislation.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    apologies the intended register will be mandatory and will require primary legislation.

    perhaps you can link to your source of information which contradicts mine?
    CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    BryanF wrote: »
    this is worrying. how would a certifier have confidence of say M&E packages...

    This has always been the worry in the wording of SI.9 (previously SI.80) from the professionals looking at the detailed wording of the legislation.

    At the RIAI Egm last october the issue of certifiers essentially guaranteeing other consultants work (M&E engineers in particular) was highlighted from the floor.

    The wording of the legislation passed is of concern to anyone willing to undertake new roles. By certifying the works with the current wordings the certifiers would appear to be providing an unqualified guarantee for other consultants work, including design work. This covers structural design calculations, mechanical and electrical designs etc. There is a big legal question as to whether the registered professionals have the specific competence to stand over the multitude of detailed professional inputs required for compliance.

    In addition the recent revision to Part D of the regulations means that in order to comply with Part D, which now includes the Construction Products Regulation 2103, that certifiers need to maintain a record of all materials being used on site. This record is quite onerous- confirmation that all materials used have a CE mark and a "declaration of performance"- this is for all materials from aggregate down to nails used on a project.

    How this can effectively be done by a anyone outside the normal supply chain (ie. no the contractor) is something as far as i am aware none of the professional bodies have addressed to date.

    The legislation would appear to have a number of problems and issues that only will become more visible to all as its implementation is rolled out....


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    "CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year."

    statutory footing means mandatory register with COP like professionals have at the moment, stricter entrance criteria and restriction from others in undertaking role.

    a mandatory register has been referred to by minister and department as being the target for si9


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    "CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year."

    statutory footing means mandatory register with COP like professionals have at the moment, stricter entrance criteria and restriction from others in undertaking role.

    i agree what it means...

    however the planning is well on the way to having the CIRI register up and running on a voluntary basis for 1st march for the implementation of SI 9, and not three years time as you posted earlier.

    therefore builders will still be required to provide a CIRI reg number on appointment (as i see it anyway)
    anything else which allows the current status quo to continue would just undermine the whole point of SI9.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement