Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 1:40pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

but is the major difference now is that its illegal to occupy the building?
or was that also included in the original act?

As far as I am aware, this is a wholly new concept. The commencement notice, in the past, was simply a tool/mechanism to notify the LA/Building Control that the works had started so that the could monitor the works proceeding if they felt the need and/or put the works on their list for inspection (in theory!).

In the past, while it was illeagl not to have not submitted a CN, the consequences really did not amount to much....which ended up being more a conveyancing 'hurdle'/issue which could be bypassed/got around.

Now, in theory, if you do not have your valid CN, as I said above, you are basically screwed as it become illegal to occupy the building.

DvB · 03-03-2014 1:50pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

As far as I am aware, this is a wholly new concept. The commencement notice, in the past, was simply a tool/mechanism to notify the LA/Building Control that the works had started so that the could monitor the works proceeding if they felt the need and/or put the works on their list for inspection (in theory!).

In the past, while it was illeagl not to have not submitted a CN, the consequences really did not amount to much....which ended up being more a conveyancing 'hurdle'/issue which could be bypassed/got around.

Now, in theory, if you do not have your valid CN, as I said above, you are basically screwed as it become illegal to occupy the building.

Pretty much my reading of it.

4Sticks · 03-03-2014 1:58pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

a certificate to regularise completed structures for the purposes of conveyancing was available under previous system: "visual only" inspection certificate etc.

Or one could simply "declare" that no certificate would be furnished. And during the CT era finds still flowed. Not now.

4Sticks · 03-03-2014 2:06pm

DvB wrote: »

I'd pretty much agree with your viewpoint there & had already formed that opinion myself & as you suggest, I'm thinking more for future hypothetical situation, lets be honest, they will occur, definitely in the commercial/industrial sector, I see it regularly despite advising against such a course of action.

My own opinion and with the aid of my crystal ball. For the rally big commercial stuff there will be no appetite for LA to bight the hands that feed it by enforcing SI 9 / 014 too hard. In the case of contracts for sale our friends on the Law
Society will find the necessary devises for transactions to continue. "Declarations" will live on.

It will be in the case of the small stuff that the little guys will suffer. Someone opening up a Take Away or Newsagent will find that a business rival will shop them ( no pun intended) to the LA - who under that circumstance will enforce SI 014 and close businesses. I hope I am wrong.

4Sticks · 03-03-2014 2:08pm

mickdw wrote: »

That being the case, are you claiming that SI 9 will make little difference to the sale of properties that were not fully compliant? If you are, and if you are correct, I can see alot of self builds (where mortgages are not required) going ahead illegally and them not worrying about certification until they sell. Similar to what is happening right now. If that is the case, this is an out and out failure.

100% agree with you there.

4Sticks · 03-03-2014 2:10pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now, in theory, if you do not have your valid CN, as I said above, you are basically screwed as it become illegal to occupy the building.

The law will become devalued as there will be no political will to enforce that provision. Not a hope in hell.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 2:12pm

4Sticks wrote: »

My own opinion and with the aid of my crystal ball. For the rally big commercial stuff there will be no appetite for LA to bight the hands that feed it by enforcing SI 9 / 014 too hard. In the case of contracts for sale our friends on the Law
Society will find the necessary devises for transactions to continue. "Declarations" will live on.

It will be in the case of the small stuff that the little guys will suffer. Someone opening up a Take Away or Newsagent will find that a business rival will shop them ( no pun intended) to the LA - who under that circumstance will enforce SI 014 and close businesses. I hope I am wrong.

problem will be legals have no way other than interpretation of si9 which is very clear. unless regulation is amended conveyancing and re-financing of non-validated properties under si9 will be an issue.

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 2:20pm

4Sticks wrote: »

The law will become devalued as there will be no political will to enforce that provision. Not a hope in hell.

I 100% agree and there are, in a lot instances, very genuine mistakes made. The legislation will have to be ammended at some point to allow for regularisation in some way or another...the real world is not always as black and white!

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 2:27pm

this all happened previously with the fire regulations when they were introduced after stardust.

it took 10 years to amend the regulations to make workable.

BryanF · 03-03-2014 2:50pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

this all happened previously with the fire regulations when they were introduced after stardust.

it took 10 years to amend the regulations to make workable.

there is no need to repeat this type of speculation

Gumbo · 03-03-2014 3:39pm

mickdw wrote: »

That being the case, are you claiming that SI 9 will make little difference to the sale of properties that were not fully compliant? If you are, and if you are correct, I can see alot of self builds (where mortgages are not required) going ahead illegally and them not worrying about certification until they sell. Similar to what is happening right now. If that is the case, this is an out and out failure.

sydthebeat wrote: »

but is the major difference now is that its illegal to occupy the building?
or was that also included in the original act?

i would imagine there would be some clause in the contracts stating it was built prior to March 1st 2014, so therefore not affected by SI9.

Like, what did people do before SI9? there are many many properties out there that did not have a valid Commencement Notice and they have been sold and occupied.

DOCARCH wrote: »

As far as I am aware, this is a wholly new concept. The commencement notice, in the past, was simply a tool/mechanism to notify the LA/Building Control that the works had started so that the could monitor the works proceeding if they felt the need and/or put the works on their list for inspection (in theory!).

In the past, while it was illeagl not to have not submitted a CN, the consequences really did not amount to much....which ended up being more a conveyancing 'hurdle'/issue which could be bypassed/got around.

Now, in theory, if you do not have your valid CN, as I said above, you are basically screwed as it become illegal to occupy the building.

My understanding of it too. But for properties built before March 1st, will have no impact, now, where properties are started going forward, that could have serious problems as they would have no completion cert from their LA IIRC.

sydthebeat · 03-03-2014 4:12pm

kceire wrote: »

i would imagine there would be some clause in the contracts stating it was built prior to March 1st 2014, so therefore not affected by SI9.

Like, what did people do before SI9? there are many many properties out there that did not have a valid Commencement Notice and they have been sold and occupied.
.

the query is for properties commenced after 1st march 2014......

as there is no facility to regularise, and occupation of a building not complying with SI9 is illegal... what haoppens?

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 4:21pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

... what haoppens?

Nobody knows! This scenario is not covered by SI 9...there is no mechanism to regularise...the powers that be obviously assume that it will never happen.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 4:23pm

interesting here is the first stab at extra professional fees for SI.9

The cost of professional fees: BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/the-actual-cost-per-house-bcar-si-9/

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 4:35pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

interesting here is the first stab at extra professional fees for SI.9

The cost of professional fees: BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/the-actual-cost-per-house-bcar-si-9/

I'll do it for E8K + VAT.

Joking aside, for the one off house, I would suggest the BRegs Blog is a more accurate estimation of what is facing people thinking of building.

As I said before in this thread, the Minister coming out in public telling them it should only cost between E1K and E3K was not the whole truth - in some interviews and in the (written) press he used the words 'per unit'. In a multiple housing development, it may add between E1K and E3K 'per unit'.

Gumbo · 03-03-2014 6:08pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

the query is for properties commenced after 1st march 2014......

as there is no facility to regularise, and occupation of a building not complying with SI9 is illegal... what haoppens?

Dont know tbh
Dont think anybody does either, until somebody has to challenge it legally.

4Sticks · 03-03-2014 6:09pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

the query is for properties commenced after 1st march 2014......

as there is no facility to regularise, and occupation of a building not complying with SI9 is illegal... what haoppens?

Fearing killing the cash cow that is planning contributions and fearing the political backlash and fearing the costs associated with taking legal actions local authorities will do as they do best - nothing.

The market will sense this in time. This will influence the conveyancing process. Where purchasers are stumping up a high % of the purchase cost caveat emptor will apply. Where purchasers are seeking to borrow a large percentage of the purchase price sales will be frustrated.

In time all this will be as Bobby Ewings death in Dallas....

BryanF · 03-03-2014 8:39pm

4Sticks wrote: »

Fearing killing the cash cow that is planning contributions and fearing the political backlash and fearing the costs associated with taking legal actions local authorities will do as they do best - nothing.

The market will sense this in time. This will influence the conveyancing process. Where purchasers are stumping up a high % of the purchase cost caveat emptor will apply. Where purchasers are seeking to borrow a large percentage of the purchase price sales will be frustrated.

In time all this will be as Bobby Ewings death in Dallas....

rant over. back on topic thanks

mullingar · 03-03-2014 8:47pm

Well that's the first working day over with the new regs in place.

Apart from the IAOSB, is there any other association or professional group fighting against the regs in their current format (even the AT's) ?

Andrew_Doran · 03-03-2014 11:14pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

if someone wants to go into a large house, gut it and do structural work themselves.... they are exempt from SI.9

this particular type of project could well do with a local authority building control officer dropping by to see if work was being done properly.

From what I see in my locality popping my head over railings I agree, and I also feel strongly that LABC involvement even in sub-40sqm extensions or attic conversions (as is the norm in England&Wales) would provide something of great value to the ordinary citizen, and help to provide jobs.

In addition to the home owner having the confidence that their builder and designer have got the basics right, it also enables those with know how, but limited budget, to do much of the work themselves and have no implication of a sub-standard job levelled at them.

mickdw · 03-03-2014 11:47pm

Will be interesting to see if this lasts 2 weeks before uproar starts. It will only be this week that the public are becoming aware.
I can't see a commencement notice being submitted anywhere in the coming weeks.

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 1:18am

LABC/ AI from uk is the way to go definitely

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 1:19am

great quote from the dail here from last week. Slightly worrying minister is not aware of all the technologists excluded from register:

Minister Hogan: “ I assure Deputy Cowen that all of the nonsense on RTE this week is absolute misinformation to the extent that it is being claimed that the cost of building a house by direct labour in a rural area will increase by as much as €50,000. Additional compliance should cost between €1,000 and €3,000, depending on market forces and where the best deal can be secured. I encourage small business professionals, such as draughtsmen, to register with the professional bodies in order that they can act as assigned certifiers.”

gman2k · 04-03-2014 1:35am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

great quote from the dail here from last week. Slightly worrying minister is not aware of all the technologists excluded from register:

Minister Hogan: “ I assure Deputy Cowen that all of the nonsense on RTE this week is absolute misinformation to the extent that it is being claimed that the cost of building a house by direct labour in a rural area will increase by as much as €50,000. Additional compliance should cost between €1,000 and €3,000, depending on market forces and where the best deal can be secured. I encourage small business professionals, such as draughtsmen, to register with the professional bodies in order that they can act as assigned certifiers.”

Apologies if the link to this speech has been posted already, I'm on mobile...
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-02-27a.328&s=Building+control#g333

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 1:46am

i suggest there's at least a few hundred well experienced and vastly more qualified technical practitioners all over the country that dont think think all this stuff is "nonsense". Little bit worrying that the minister is admitting he doesnt know the difference between draughtsperson and architectural technologist in the dail.

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 1:48am

sorry back on track re implementation- i couldnt resist a bit of sarcasm after reading that dail debate again

anyone tried to log on to BMCS today? looks like no security protocol at all.

Happyman42 · 04-03-2014 10:00am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

to be honest the whole of SI9 is riddled with contradictions and holes... also, if someone wants to go into a large house, gut it and do structural work themselves.... they are exempt from SI.9

this particular type of project could well do with a local authority building control officer dropping by to see if work was being done properly.

Is that not a huge loophole...are you saying that if a previous building exists then any structural work to make it habitable is exempt?

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 10:04am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is that not a huge loophole...are you saying that if a previous building exists then any structural work to make it habitable is exempt?

Significant structural Work to an existing non protected house or structure, if exempt from planning, would not fall under si9. For non residential material alterations this is grey area possibly subject to differing local authority interpretations.

4Sticks · 04-03-2014 11:34am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Significant structural Work to an existing non protected house or structure, if exempt from planning, would

Fall under SI 351 2009 i.e. the commencement notice regime existing up until 28 Feb 2014.

Hairy mellon · 04-03-2014 1:20pm

yes BMCS has no security protocol: users could upload details of others for their buildings etc.

No checks of Designer, Builder or Assigned Certifier on #BCMS | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/no-checks-of-designer-builder-or-assigned-certifier-on-bcms/

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens