Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

martinn123 · 01-03-2014 9:53pm

Breaking.......Enda states

"Yes, Self Build can continue."

In his FG. speech.

So,

Everyone clear on that.

Happyman42 · 01-03-2014 10:11pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Breaking.......Enda states

"Yes, Self Build can continue."

In his FG. speech.

So,

Everyone clear on that.

You serious?

martinn123 · 01-03-2014 10:59pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You serious?

Well he. Is our leader, do you not believe him.

( stupid question. )

Mine, not yours.

Hairy mellon · 02-03-2014 2:50am

martinn123 wrote: »

Well he. Is our leader, do you not believe him.

( stupid question. )

Mine, not yours.

Lol they Arent the first politicuant to inderstand legislation they introduce. Enda be able to act as assigned certifier on all the self builds now. No one else will

ddoolan · 02-03-2014 3:11pm

Any chance he did that in writing? I looked up his speech on the FineGael site and there is no mention

02-03-2014 10:18pm

hi
I apologise in advance if this has been asked already!!

How do you register as a builder?
Is there a website you can check?

Many thanks:)

Hairy mellon · 02-03-2014 10:23pm

Register is ciri and its on cif website

Credit card with €600

sparksfly · 03-03-2014 7:32am

DOCARCH wrote: »

Toddling off now to revise drawings for what was a 43.4m.sq. extension to 39.9m.sq. :P
.

(2) The requirement for a Certificate of Compliance on Completion shall
apply to the following works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area no greater
than 40 square metres

Look at (b) above, "no greater than 40 square metres", not "greater than 40 square metres".
No point in revising anything in my opinion.

sparksfly · 03-03-2014 7:40am

scwazrh wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that a simple explanation of the new regs is -

1) If under 40 sqm extension or renovation , nothing changes.
2) anything over 40 sqm extension or a new build needs to be certified by either an architect or engineer.

Point (b) in the previous post also applies here I think. Its up to 40 sqm, not over 40 sqm, or am I not getting this?

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 8:17am

sparksfly wrote: »

Point (b) in the previous post also applies here I think. Its up to 40 sqm, not over 40 sqm, or am I not getting this?

No, I don't think you have it?

An extension to an existing house, 40 m.sq. or less, does not have to comply with new building control regulations.

An extension to an existing house, in excess of 40 m.sq., does have to comply with new building control regulations.

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 8:19am

sparksfly wrote: »

(2) The requirement for a Certificate of Compliance on Completion shall
apply to the following works and buildings—
(a) the design and construction of a new dwelling,
(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area no greater
than 40 square metres

Look at (b) above, "no greater than 40 square metres", not "greater than 40 square metres".
No point in revising anything in my opinion.

I think I see where your confusion arose? I think you may be quoting the initial draft of the legislation above, which, at the time, would have appeared to include all extensions. Thsi has been ammended since in SI 9 2014.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 10:01am

There is some confusion re certain works and clarification is required with regarding to commencement notices.

For example non residential works below 25sqm that do not require a fire cert but require a commencement notice.

Given the lack of clarity there may be differing interpretations by local authorities of whether some works in this category are qualifying re si9

Lookin at the regulation and code of practice it would appear they will come under si9. This has huge implications on smaller projects for sme's, fit outs etc

DvB · 03-03-2014 12:15pm

Was just thinking more about this over the weekend, & specifically where/what is the route to having a certificate of compliance registered for retention works?

Its naive to think everything will be done through the normal route of obtaining PP first. So if you have a building that has only been granted retention PP yet complies with the building regulations & there being no retrospective system in place for submitting the required documentation as there is no commencement notice submitted for such works, have retention PP's become illegal? After all, the occupation, sale or lease of any new building without a registered compliance certificate is illegal, is it not? Or am I missing something here? (which hands up I could be with the conflicting viewpoints I've been reading up on over the weekend)

I'm aware retention PP's relate to the planning act & not the BC act, but they are linked in reality.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 12:24pm

no facility for retrospective compliance in SI.9.

very difficult situation for anyone wanting to sell on property.

mickdw · 03-03-2014 12:29pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

no facility for retrospective compliance in SI.9.

very difficult situation for anyone wanting to sell on property.

But take the example of a house built maybe 3 years back but without commencement and some layout changes made.
Retention would regularise all aspects of that but how do you prove that the house was in fact built prior to these regs?

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 12:30pm

DvB wrote: »

I'm aware retention PP's relate to the planning act & not the BC act, but they are linked in reality.

I think you are actually linking the two, too much.

If the structure has already been built, and is built in compliance with the building regulations, and somebody is willing to certifiy same, I do not see any issue?

Leave aside the new building control regulations, under the building control regulations that existed up to last Friday, you could not submit a commencemnet notice - or regularise that situtaion - for something that was/has been already built (defeats the purpose), so, I don't really see any newer or greater issue with the new regs?

DvB · 03-03-2014 12:32pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

no facility for retrospective compliance in SI.9.

I'm aware of that, hence the question re: retention pp's. AFAIK this scenario hasn't been mentioned in any discussions or clarifications to date.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 12:32pm

a certificate to regularise completed structures for the purposes of conveyancing was available under previous system: "visual only" inspection certificate etc. This is compliance with the building regulations.

there is no such certificate under SI.9 for retrospective certification. There is no way such mechanism to regularise compliance with building regulations under BC(A)R SI.9

DvB · 03-03-2014 12:36pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

I think you are actually linking the two, too much.

If the structure has already been built, and is built in compliance with the building regulations, and somebody is willing to certifiy same, I do not see any issue?

Leave aside the new building control regulations, under the building control regulations that existed up to last Friday, you could not submit a commencemnet notice - or regularise that situtaion - for something that was/has been already built (defeats the purpose), so, I don't really see any newer or greater issue with the new regs?

That is one scenario that sadly does not cover all situations.

But an opinion of compliance with PP (based on the grant of the retention PP) & building regulations could be issued allowing its re-sale and/or lease, under the amended BC regs it cannot, or at least cannot be registered, therefore would that building be illegal to sell, lease or even occupy?

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 12:36pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

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

there is no such certificate under SI.9 for retrospective certification

I think you may be confusing issues too?

There was any sort of statutory/formal 'certificate to regularise completed structures' available 'under the previous system'?

All certification was in essence a private matter (nothing to do with any legislation) and to do with the conveyance of property.

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 12:44pm

DvB wrote: »

That is one scenario that sadly does not cover all situations.

But an opinion of compliance with PP (based on the grant of the retention PP) & building regulations could be issued allowing its re-sale and/or lease, under the amended BC regs it cannot, or at least cannot be registered, therefore would that building be illegal to sell, lease or even occupy?

DvB, are you talking about a 'historic' hypothetical situtaion or a future hypothetical situation?

Certainly, in the future, is somebody built say a 50 m.sq. extension, without planning permission and subsequently obtained retention planning permission...fine on the planning front...all regularised.

But, as I think you might be suggesting, in the future, yes, I think if there was no commencement notice or the wrong commencemnet notice, then, under the new regs, the owner is pretty much screwed! There is no provision under SI 9 to regularise this situation.

If somebody had built say a 50 m.sq. extension in the past, and, say, today (i.e. after SI 9) receieved retention permission for that structure, because the structure was built prior to SI 9 and if somebody is happy to certify (retrospective) compliance with building regulations (regulations that pertained when the structure was built), I would suggest they could sell their property even without a commencement notice having been served.

DvB · 03-03-2014 12:53pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

DvB, are you talking about a 'historic' hypothetical situtaion or a future hypothetical situation?

Certainly, in the future, is somebody built say a 50 m.sq. without planning permission and subsequently obtained retention planning permission...fine on the planning front...all regularised.

But, as I think you might be suggesting, in the future, yes, I think if there was no commencement notice or the wrong commencemnet notice, then, under the new regs, the owner is pretty much screwed!

If somebody had built say a 50 m.sq. extension in the past, and, say, today (i.e. after SI 9) receieved retention permission for that structure, because the structure was built prior to SI 9 and if somebody is happy to certify (retrospective) compliance with building regulations (regulations that pertained when the structure was built), I would suggest they could sell their property even without a commencement notice having been served.

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.

This may not be the best example but was one I encountered last year & hypothetically jumped it forward to 2014 as a sample case (after March 1st) where modular buildings were installed & being used initially as a temporary overflow office, but subsequently when it was clear these would be required on a far longer timespan & required PP, it was sought via retention & was granted, planning was covered & an opinion of compliance with PP & BRegs was issued after a subsequent FSC & DAC were sought for & granted. However, under the current regs my understanding is that this building would have no registered certificate of compliance & would be illegal to occupy (based on the wording of the DoE literature anyway)

I apologise if this is muddling the situation, its just a scenario in my mind I'm struggling to be in a position to explain to myself & being above board.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 1:04pm

DvB wrote: »

That is one scenario that sadly does not cover all situations.

But an opinion of compliance with PP (based on the grant of the retention PP) & building regulations could be issued allowing its re-sale and/or lease, under the amended BC regs it cannot, or at least cannot be registered, therefore would that building be illegal to sell, lease or even occupy?

Agree possible conveyancing and re financing issues here wih relation to building regularion compliance

DOCARCH · 03-03-2014 1:07pm

DvB wrote: »

However, under the current regs my understanding is that this building would have no registered certificate of compliance & would be illegal to occupy (based on the wording of the DoE literature anyway).

I think this is a correct assumption.

Under new regs, very basically, the lack of commencement notice = illegal to occupy. No way of regularising this under SI 9.

Another complication, on a different, but related matter, would be the situtaion where somebody is building say a 50 m.sq. extension to their house and wish to live in the remainder of the house while the extension is being built. Is this legal or illegal under SI 9?

mickdw · 03-03-2014 1:11pm

It would appear to be illegal if they were to access the extension prior to being certified. I dont really see an issue there

sydthebeat · 03-03-2014 1:15pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Another complication, on a different, but related matter, would be the situtaion where somebody is building say a 50 m.sq. extension to their house and wish to live in the remainder of the house while the extension is being built. Is this legal or illegal under SI 9?

why would this be consider illegal?
i would interpret the regs referring to "occupancy of the building" in this case, as occupancy of the extension.

i cannot see how any other intrepretation could be considered anything but obscure.

Gumbo · 03-03-2014 1:15pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

a certificate to regularise completed structures for the purposes of conveyancing was available under previous system: "visual only" inspection certificate etc. This is compliance with the building regulations.

there is no such certificate under SI.9 for retrospective certification. There is no way such mechanism to regularise compliance with building regulations under BC(A)R SI.9

There was never any retrospective compliance for BC before SI9 either. If your CN was invalidated or lodged after works commenced then you could never lodge a CN, its the same now.

Retention never came under the remit for BCA's, infact CN's would be returned to the applicant if they lodged for a retention project.

Hairy mellon · 03-03-2014 1:17pm

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.

mickdw · 03-03-2014 1:29pm

kceire wrote: »

There was never any retrospective compliance for BC before SI9 either. If your CN was invalidated or lodged after works commenced then you could never lodge a CN, its the same now.

Retention never came under the remit for BCA's, infact CN's would be returned to the applicant if they lodged for a retention project.

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 · 03-03-2014 1:32pm

kceire wrote: »

There was never any retrospective compliance for BC before SI9 either. If your CN was invalidated or lodged after works commenced then you could never lodge a CN, its the same now.

Retention never came under the remit for BCA's, infact CN's would be returned to the applicant if they lodged for a retention project.

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

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments

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

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

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

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