Are the Regs changing? "Imminent changes"

Hairy mellon · 29-11-2014 12:17am #1

has anyone read this:

https://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/imminent-changes-to-si-9-announced-minister-alan-kelly-t-d/

BryanF · 29-11-2014 12:21am

Great, but there is NO detail..

Hairy mellon · 29-11-2014 12:27am

as with all information from the department, the devil is in the detail...

kkelliher · 29-11-2014 9:26am

here is a link to his actual speech which always give more information than extracts for anyone interested

http://cif.ie/news-feed/news/499-ciri-reception-with-minister-alan-kelly.html

Hairy mellon · 29-11-2014 11:16am

the video is well worth watching imo- gives context and sets the tone.

kelly does not sound very convincing when he goes off script

Chisler2 · 30-11-2014 10:46pm

kkelliher wrote: »

here is a link to his actual speech which always give more information than extracts for anyone interested

http://cif.ie/news-feed/news/499-ciri-reception-with-minister-alan-kelly.html

At 15.16: "Having said that [......Priory Hall type incidents must never be allowed happen again] we cannot be using a mallet to crack a nut, and in relation to some Building Regulations I will propose some amendments, particularly in relation to self-build, one-off houses and extensions, because I think some change is needed in that whole area as I believe..........I know.......the Regulations are too onerous for people and myself and Minister Coffey will be working on that".

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 9:23am

Chisler2 wrote: »

At 15.16: "Having said that [......Priory Hall type incidents must never be allowed happen again] we cannot be using a mallet to crack a nut, and in relation to some Building Regulations I will propose some amendments, particularly in relation to self-build, one-off houses and extensions, because I think some change is needed in that whole area as I believe..........I know.......the Regulations are too onerous for people and myself and Minister Coffey will be working on that".

it will be interesting to see how they work this. have stringent rules on one side and relaxed rules on another. Somehow I don't believe that will make for good regulation.

sydthebeat · 01-12-2014 10:56am

kkelliher wrote: »

it will be interesting to see how they work this. have stringent rules on one side and relaxed rules on another. Somehow I don't believe that will make for good regulation.

i definitely think there should be a differentiation in the regulations between a domestic building procured for ones one habitation (self build / extension) and a domestic building procured for development and sale (apartment blocks / housing estates etc)

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 12:09pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

i definitely think there should be a differentiation in the regulations between a domestic building procured for ones one habitation (self build / extension) and a domestic building procured for development and sale (apartment blocks / housing estates etc)

But how can you guarantee this. Its not like you can lock in a requirement to live then for x number of years as you cant undo the differential in terms of build quality after it has being built? I agree completely on the extension side of things but on single one off builds, I cant see how you can have different rules for a one off developer and a one off self builder.

DOCARCH · 01-12-2014 12:13pm

Unfortunately, the new regs will not ensure a better build for any type of development. A little trickier, but, there will still be cowboys under the new regs.

sydthebeat · 01-12-2014 12:18pm

kkelliher wrote: »

But how can you guarantee this. Its not like you can lock in a requirement to live then for x number of years as you cant undo the differential in terms of build quality after it has being built? I agree completely on the extension side of things but on single one off builds, I cant see how you can have different rules for a one off developer and a one off self builder.

well when i was referring to "developer" led projects i wasnt referring to one off developers for sale.
If you look at social housing theres a cut off of 4 units before section 8 kicks in.
If you look at planning a lot of councils impose an occupancy condition for rural dwellings.
If you look at the old 'housing grant' scheme there was a cut off point of a certain floor area

... point being that there are always was to separate the wheat from the chaff, if i can use that analogy.

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 2:08pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

well when i was referring to "developer" led projects i wasnt referring to one off developers for sale.
If you look at social housing theres a cut off of 4 units before section 8 kicks in.
If you look at planning a lot of councils impose an occupancy condition for rural dwellings.
If you look at the old 'housing grant' scheme there was a cut off point of a certain floor area

... point being that there are always was to separate the wheat from the chaff, if i can use that analogy.

fully agreed and each of the above had an ability of rectification if not complied with. This is the issue I see with the proposal. I also find it hard to see how any system could justify having a housing estate on the edge of a village built to meet a specific standard and a one off house 500m down the road not.

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 2:09pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Unfortunately, the new regs will not ensure a better build for any type of development. A little trickier, but, there will still be cowboys under the new regs.

completely agree, but like debating all legislation we must read it on the face on the assumption everyones complies.

sydthebeat · 01-12-2014 2:23pm

kkelliher wrote: »

fully agreed and each of the above had an ability of rectification if not complied with. This is the issue I see with the proposal. I also find it hard to see how any system could justify having a housing estate on the edge of a village built to meet a specific standard and a one off house 500m down the road not.

well, to be fair, the "specific standard" to be built to doesnt change at all, they are still the building regulations.

the problem is should you apply the same "due diligence" standard to a 40 sq m extension, as you would to a 200 unit apartment block, where the cost of the said 'due diligence' is a much much higher percentage of total costs the smaller the project becomes.

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 3:12pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

well, to be fair, the "specific standard" to be built to doesnt change at all, they are still the building regulations.

the problem is should you apply the same "due diligence" standard to a 40 sq m extension, as you would to a 200 unit apartment block, where the cost of the said 'due diligence' is a much much higher percentage of total costs the smaller the project becomes.

I agree extensions should not form part (up to a certain size) but I do believe a one off house should have the same due diligence (pro rata based on its size) to a 200 unit apartment block. It should be noted that the 200 unit apartment block will be paying a hefty fee for the privilege so you have to be some way consistent across the sector.

to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the legislation I just believe you have to apply it, in whatever guise it happens to be, across the board

Strolling Bones · 01-12-2014 3:26pm

I believe refurbishments which exceed a set no of m2 (40 is as good a number as any) should require DC AC and competent contractor appointments. That would be a good change.

I also think the law should reflect a "make your own bed and lie in it" approach. Let the self builder who "will never sell" his house be afforded the opportunity of a parralel less onerous process. And let those who eventually buy the house later see this.

kkelliher · 01-12-2014 3:47pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I also think the law should reflect a "make your own bed and lie in it" approach. Let the self builder who "will never sell" his house be afforded the opportunity of a parralel less onerous process. And let those who eventually buy the house later see this.

Is that not what we already have?. Surely a building control system should be that, a control system of all not just parts of the built environment (and again I am not saying what we have is acceptable, I am talking about the system itself in whatever way it is arranged)

sydthebeat · 01-12-2014 6:02pm

kkelliher wrote: »

Is that not what we already have?. Surely a building control system should be that, a control system of all not just parts of the built environment (and again I am not saying what we have is acceptable, I am talking about the system itself in whatever way it is arranged)

we can throw a stone from our jurisdiction to another jurisdiction where the system works fine.

ive said it before and ill say it again.

SI9 created a system where the people with all the power have no responsibility, and the people with all the responsibility have no power.

that system is simply mindbogglingly wrong.

The people who are responsible for ensuring the regulations are complied with should be given every power to do so in an independent manner.

Hairy mellon · 01-12-2014 6:28pm

the big problem is self-certification can't work without a register of builders.

this means self-building will be finished as soon as CIRI gets put on a statutory footing next year.

if it doesnt' then we have properly regulated everyone else except builders- the one group that need regulation and policing.

this is the inherent contradiction-

Strolling Bones · 01-12-2014 7:09pm

kkelliher wrote: »

Surely a building control system should be that, a control system of all not just parts of the built environment (and again I am not saying what we have is acceptable, I am talking about the system itself in whatever way it is arranged)

Agreed but I am starting from where we are.

In response to a criminal being allowed to "develop" a firetrap set of apartments we have today SI 9 2014. A one size fits all response heralded by all 3 professional associations whose members it advantages together with the Law Society whose members also set to benefit. For failures occurring under SI 9 will only be remedied in our courts as SI 9 seeks to distance the State from it's Citizens. The most persistent objection to SI9 is from the self builders association whose members know damn well how to build their own house thank you very much and do no need anybody to tell them how. Or to put it another way they care not to add builders profits or professional fees onto the cost of the monthly mortgage.

We have local authorities with very little stomach for exercising the powers the BCA 1990 endows them with for that has proved very costly for them indeed in the aftermath of Priory Hall. Not as costly as it was for the occupiers but then they literally have to die before an intransigent minister responds. His pyrite remediation fund is something of a geographical lottery - your house may literally be crumbling apart but if you live in the wrong county then that's just too bad.

So I am sort of selecting the nicest lipstick for the gorilla here for to expect good governance and regulation for our once sovereign almost independent nation - well I don't hold out much hope.

SI 9 Mark II could be split into 2 parts - Part 1 to cover all buildings apart from self-build- one-off-owner-to-occupy-houses. Part 2 to cover only self-build- one-off-owner-to-occupy-houses. The self builder to be required to sign a stat dec. declaring / undertaking that a)this will be their only residence and that b) they will live in it for a min of 7 years and that c) they have not built in a similar fashion in the previous 7 years - or something similar.

They must appoint DC and AC but they can un-ambiguously declare themselves the builder (the part about principal or director of a building company to be omitted). The wordings of the clients appointments and of the DC AC undertakings and certificates to be altered to more evenly spread the liability back into the laps of those self builders "who know best" how to build their own homes after all. This should give reduce the risks to the professionals such that they can scale back the hours to provide only that service which the market will tolerate. ( Just show up and sign the certs ).

This is how I see things going.

Hairy mellon · 01-12-2014 7:21pm

I can see the DECLG introducing an ill-conceived "patch" like the SI.105 derogation

due to the unweildy and uncertain procedure set up only a handful of schools have availed of this

expect something similar for once-off builders etc.

the current confusion regarding the most basic part of the regs, the 40Sqm 'cumulative' exemption from provisions under BC(A)R SI.9, is demonstration enough that the department are only discovering themselves what they have introduced 9 months on.

galwaytt · 02-12-2014 1:01pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

We have local authorities with very little stomach for exercising the powers the BCA 1990 endows them with for that has proved very costly for them indeed in the aftermath of Priory Hall. .

If it's costly it's because the LA's and other 'professionals' failed miserably in their own job. There were certs produced by all & sundry that PH complied, when it patently didn't. The LA and others should be paying for their own mistakes, but no, the whole country gets saddled with SI9 instead.

Laws, without proper oversight & enforcement are completely meaningless, and actually lead to diminution - an ass of a law is far more likely to be more honoured in being ignored than followed. Add more laws on top of that just makes things worse.

Ergo, where we (all) are now.

Strolling Bones · 02-12-2014 2:30pm

No argument there galwaytt.

So what the minister will do - I believe - is dilute SI 9 down for the self builder / home extender because they know best how to do that.
And otherwise off we go business as usual.

Nothing else will change and I mean that in the big picture sense.
Developers are simply a few cheque signings removed from self certification
The LA's can continue their 20+ years policy of housing themeselves in finer accomodations whilst evading their BCA 1990 granted powers and responsibilities
The profesionals will continue to extract the max benefit they can from the circumstances.
And if you buy a new home - well fingers crossed as always. Hope you know a good lawyer.

Drift · 02-12-2014 3:52pm

SI9 is out there and in place and although we all know it should have been done differently I'm fairly sure we're stuck with it.

With that in mind - any adjustments/relaxations that come about will probably be by way of supporting legislation rather than a rewrite.

So what's the best that can be accomplished without a complete rewrite?

I honestly believe it would be counter-productive and dangerous to dilute or relax the requirements for self-build/one-off/extension projects. We all know the building regulations have not been changed but to the average punter (and to the average cowboy) a relaxation in SI9 supervisory requirements for one-off houses would lead them to believe that they can cut corners on build quality on one-off developments. We all know plenty of very poor quality houses built during the boom, by both cowboys and well meaning uneducated "self-builders." I fear a relaxation of SI9 would bring us back to those days.

Albeit with terribly written legislation we are at last on the path to some sort of system that would give people purchasing homes a standardised/uniform certification system they can chase up - and combined with mandatory qualifications for AC and CIRI it's the start of a process that may eventually lead to a trustworthy stock of one-off houses.

Having said all that I think changes can be implemented for one-off domestic projects that will give people the confidence that all buildings are built/supervised to an appropriate standard whilst reducing the burden of cost on the client and the burden of liability on the certifier:

I think direction and clarity with regard to inspection regimes and an associated set of standardised inspection reports (agreed with PI insurers) may be possible for domestic houses.
I hate saying this (because it means more hassle for me!) but the quagmire of the holy trinity is a mess and a independant qualification could be implemented for Assigned Certifiers (think BER Assessor but implemented 1000 times better). It could have different levels of qualification for different project sizes if needed. (i.e. less onerous test for single domestic dwelling to 10 storey office block.)
A more unified approach amongst Local Authority's regarding Commencement Notices could easily be implemented with appropriate standard checklists and processes.
Seperately a clarification/direction regarding the role of Building Control Officers is required.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it makes sense. It was a stream of thought rather than a planned tome!

Strolling Bones · 02-12-2014 4:42pm

Good post Drift.

I too think the SEAI system of spliting building types into 3 groupings ( houses-hotels-hospitals being my own shorthand) and with a sliding scale of qualifications to match with respect to DC AC services has merit.

Peolple WANT to be free to build their own homes "to the regs - but not going mad , like" and sadly I belive that is the narrow short sighted political view on it too. Domestics will revert to as you were. For worse , not better. Let them lie in their own beds makes perfect cynical Irish political sense.

My own view is that it is a massive mistake to take at face value that SI 9 is about building standards.

Where has anybody publicly argued this?

- self builders bleat about costs
- designers and cetifiers bleat about liabilities
- LA's are content to become filing depositories only.They won't even warrant that the information they validate is complete and correct - and will quickly point to where in BCA 1990 they are allowed to behave so
- CIF are delighted. A new quango to generate an income stream and forms of certifications that passes the buck onto others
- Dept of Finance is happy as it beleives will yeild more taxes from a now more compliant construction industry.

The true purpose is to protect the state from it's citizens - and it does that rather well I believe.

Drift · 02-12-2014 5:02pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

The true purpose is to protect the state from it's citizens - and it does that rather well I believe.

QFT!

But it's more complicated than that because the state IS its citizens! It's a viscious circle of no-one wanting to take responsibility because each party is afraid they will be the ONLY one taking responsibility and will be stuck with the responsibility for others.

Hence we end up with an Irish solution to an Irish problem where the people who can dissociate themselves from responsibility do so at the expense of those who can't!

Strolling Bones · 02-12-2014 5:05pm

If you tried to make it up people would laugh

Hairy mellon · 20-12-2014 12:11am

its FUBAR

latest issue is a lack of procedure and clarity for completion stage for multiple units.

it's heading towards farce now...

Hairy mellon · 20-12-2014 12:11am

interesting 2 page article on RIAI in the village magazine today...

DOCARCH · 21-12-2014 8:40am

Hairy mellon wrote: »

interesting 2 page article on RIAI in the village magazine today...

What was the article about?

Tried looking for Village Magazine yesterday but could not find it.

Hairy mellon · 21-12-2014 12:39pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

What was the article about?

Tried looking for Village Magazine yesterday but could not find it.

Its 2 full pages documenting recent resignations, misstatements by presiden and conflicts of interest for ceo. Mentions untendered payments to staff family members etc. Quotes from recent resignation letters. It reads that organisation is very like a new imo or rehab.

breffnij · 02-01-2015 12:47pm

Hi,

I was onto my local councillor and he emailed the department on my behalf after I got some outrageous quotes (one was 32k!!). There reply was

"Thank you for your enquiry in relation to the Building Regulations. I am afraid that there is not much that we can do for your constituent on this occasion. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations introduced the requirement for an Assigned Certifier from 1st March 2014 to help improve the standard of works for all new development. Chartered engineers, registered architects and registered building surveyors are the only professionals who may be appointed to the roles of assigned certifier. The costs associated with this work is not specified and will vary with each job depending on the size and complexity of the development and the experience of the contractors carrying out the works. Typically I would expect the fees to be in the range €5,000 to €7,000 for a one off house being constructed by a registered builder. The rate per house in a larger development will be significantly less. Your e-mail refers to self build houses and in this case the costs may be significantly greater as the assigned certifier may have to assess the competency of those carrying out the works, requiring a greater attendance on site to ensure that the standards are being implemented. We have contacted the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government who have confirmed that they are not currently reviewing the Regulations but hope to commence a review in February 2015."

Very annoying as this will probably be stretched out until Sept before a decision is made...if lucky.

sydthebeat · 02-01-2015 2:28pm

So their "estimations" are slowly creeping up, from little phils €1k - €3k.... now to €5k-€7k.

They simply haven't a clue about the liability they are foisting on the certifier and the standard of work to be done to be certain of no liability.

Strolling Bones · 02-01-2015 5:33pm

breffnij wrote: »

I was onto my local councillor and he emailed the department on my behalf after I got some outrageous quotes (one was 32k!!).

Keep us posted. Those qoutes are not outrageous if you undertsand the liabilities and workload attached to the service.

But do continue to stir as much hassle as you can in the right direction - the lawmakers not architects.

breffnij · 02-01-2015 5:39pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Keep us posted. Those qoutes are not outrageous if you undertsand the liabilities and workload attached to the service.

Are you joking me?? 32k is crazy money for a self build....i don't care what paperwork or insurance/liability is involved.

DOCARCH · 02-01-2015 6:44pm

breffnij wrote: »

Are you joking me?? 32k is crazy money for a self build....i don't care what paperwork or insurance/liability is involved.

The liability is potentially crazy for the certifier...thus the fee.

sydthebeat · 02-01-2015 8:02pm

breffnij wrote: »

Are you joking me?? 32k is crazy money for a self build....i don't care what paperwork or insurance/liability is involved.

3 site visits a week @3hrs a pop (travel, on site, office work after) x 28 week build = 100 Euros an hour.
= €26k + vat.

Quite reasonable for an office to charge that rate.

Not at all crazy.

The standard required under the law and the liability forced onto ONE person is the crazy part.

Strolling Bones · 02-01-2015 8:59pm

breffnij wrote: »

...i don't care what paperwork or insurance/liability is involved.

Now that's a bit selfish don't you think?

BryanF · 02-01-2015 10:19pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Now that's a bit selfish don't you think?

Come on now, it's a clients priority to question this fee, and the certifers obligation to justify the fee.

Strolling Bones · 03-01-2015 5:46pm

He rejected not questioned the basis for the fee. Not In ignorance of but indiference to the circumstance of the certifier.

In any event in complaining to elected officials he is taking the appropriate action. brefnij be aware that the minister is reviewing the new regs at this time. You should make your views know to HIM at alankelly.ie

breffnij · 11-01-2015 2:29pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

brefnij be aware that the minister is reviewing the new regs at this time. You should make your views know to HIM at alankelly.ie

I have already..no reply. hence why I went to my local councillor and no surprise got a reply back within a week.

In relation to the fees I was quoted for 7 site visits for the main stages in the build. Not a certifier in THE WORLD is going to come to a site 94 times @ 3 hours a time to certify a project so I disagree with your figures. Another reason why this is outrageous.

The liability is one aspect I can understand- if high fees are going to be argued let it be over this point but surely some insurances plans can reduce this liability.

sydthebeat · 11-01-2015 9:39pm

breffnij wrote: »

I have already..no reply. hence why I went to my local councillor and no surprise got a reply back within a week.

In relation to the fees I was quoted for 7 site visits for the main stages in the build. Not a certifier in THE WORLD is going to come to a site 94 times @ 3 hours a time to certify a project so I disagree with your figures. Another reason why this is outrageous.

The liability is one aspect I can understand- if high fees are going to be argued let it be over this point but surely some insurances plans can reduce this liability.

the frequency for site visits on a build with a registered experienced contractor is gauged to b approx 30ish (IEI and RIAI)

however with a "self build" or "direct labour" it would not at all be unusual for the frequency to be double that, to make sure the build is being built properly.

also, my figures above are showing an office charging €100 per hour, that would actually be to the low end of most companies costs. €200 and hour would be 42 site visits

breffnij · 11-01-2015 10:21pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

3 site visits a week @3hrs a pop (travel, on site, office work after) x 28 week build = 100 Euros an hour.
part.

So you were just throwing out random figures here then? I'm not arguing but I think this is just backing up my point of all these varying quotes as you've now said site visits can be anywhere from 30ish to 60ish to 90ish visits on a house build. As well as costs being €100ish to €200ish.

Anyway, I've secured a guy for this project who has experience and comes recommended. His quote is a third of the 32k quote and includes everything. I'm not saying this to have a go at anyone just to highlight this rate for anyone doing it. No doubt other quotes are cheaper or others more expensive.

sydthebeat · 11-01-2015 10:30pm

breffnij wrote: »

So you were just throwing out random figures here then? I'm not arguing but I think this is just backing up my point of all these varying quotes as you've now said site visits can be anywhere from 30ish to 60ish to 90ish visits on a house build. As well as costs being €100ish to €200ish.

Anyway, I've secured a guy for this project who has experience and comes recommended. His quote is a third of the 32k quote and includes everything. I'm not saying this to have a go at anyone just to highlight this rate for anyone doing it. No doubt other quotes are cheaper or others more expensive.

nah im not throwing out random figures, ive explained where the come from, i was just outlining how an office may come up with those quotes.

and im glad you got a quote of approx 11k, thats a lot more realistic and in line with similar quotes ive seen.

still, 11k is a ridiculous amount of money to spend out of your mortgage isnt it.......

breffnij · 11-01-2015 10:35pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

still, 11k is a ridiculous amount of money to spend out of your mortgage isnt it.......

It is crazy but if you get a better home its worth it. Agreement I have is pending changes to the regs the price of certication will come down accordingly which is pretty sound. Unfair/ Unreasonable to ask him to set any figures we will just work it out as it comes..........now to start having a go at builders prices!!

sydthebeat · 11-01-2015 10:39pm

breffnij wrote: »

It is crazy but if you get a better home its worth it. Agreement I have is pending changes to the regs the price of certication will come down accordingly which is pretty sound. Unfair/ Unreasonable to ask him to set any figures we will just work it out as it comes..........now to start having a go at builders prices!!

yeah but if you "commence" under the current regs, thats what youll be stuck with, you wont be able to change.

personally i think, with a review in late january, and a change to the BCARS most probably requiring another SI amendment, your looking at min 6 months before anything could be seen to change... if at all.....

galwaytt · 12-01-2015 5:15pm

breffnij wrote: »

It is crazy but if you get a better home its worth it. Agreement I have is pending changes to the regs the price of certication will come down accordingly which is pretty sound. Unfair/ Unreasonable to ask him to set any figures we will just work it out as it comes..........now to start having a go at builders prices!!

....which brings up an interesting question: will your house be any better because of it ? Remember, the technical regs never changed, only the 'admin' of them, so technically the house will be the exact same..........

Strolling Bones · 12-01-2015 5:33pm

galwaytt wrote: »

Remember, the technical regs never changed, only the 'admin' of them, so technically the house will be the exact same..........

Is that really your opinion?

Gumbo · 18-01-2015 10:14pm

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Is that really your opinion?

The technical regulations didn't chage per say.
They chage periodically (Part K on the 1st January 2015 and Part E from the 1st July 2015 for example). The building control act as introduced in March 2014 didn't have an effect on the Technical requirements of the regulations.

Drift · 19-01-2015 6:01pm

I honestly believe that despite the building regulations themselves not changing the quality of housing stock will increase because of the new control regulations. Although most of the people who post here are conscientious enough to have supervised effectively before the new rules we all know of houses that were supervised poorly or indeed not supervised at all!

Strolling Bones · 19-01-2015 6:25pm

Drift wrote: »

I honestly believe that despite the building regulations themselves not changing the quality of housing stock will increase because of the new control regulations.

Me too.

Are the Regs changing? "Imminent changes"

Comments