Planning and BERs

sydthebeat

Kilkenny county council are now looking for a 'statement of intent' to be included in planning applications to show compliance with Part L of the building regulations.

The policy in their new CDP states:

9.8.4.1 Alternative Energy Systems
For large buildings over 1,000m2, the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (S.I.
No. 666) 2006 require that due consideration has been given to the technical,
environmental and economic feasibility of installing alternative energy systems in the
proposed building, and that the use of such systems has been taken into account, as far
as practicable, in the design of that building. This shall also apply to all housing schemes
of ten or more units.
The preferred methodology for assessing the feasibility of such alternative energy
systems shall be the Sustainable Energy Ireland software tool or other acceptable
methodology as defined in S.I. No. 666 of 2006.
POLICY
• IE36 Encourage ‘A’ energy ratings for all new dwellings and non residential
buildings, in conjunction with the Carlow – Kilkenny Energy Agency and
Sustainable Energy Ireland.
• IE37 Require that as part of any planning application, a statement of intent
with calculations be submitted showing how the proposal will comply with
Part L of the Building Regulations in relation to the energy performance
coefficient and carbon performance coefficient.
• IE38 Require that planning applications demonstrate that due consideration
has been given to the technical, environmental and economic feasibility of
installing alternative energy systems in a proposed large building, as defined
in S.I. No. 666 of 2006, and that the use of such systems has been taken into
account, as far as practicable, in the design of that building.


I think this is a hugely pro-active step by a LA and one that should be applauded and copied throughout the country.

RKQ

sydthebeat wrote: »

Kilkenny county council are now looking for a 'statement of intent' to be included in planning applications to show compliance with Part L of the building regulations.

I think this is a hugely pro-active step by a LA and one that should be applauded and copied throughout the country.

I completely disagree.... Planning permission has nothing to do with Building Regulation Compliance. Now 6 MORE reports must be included! Another waste of paper and time in my opinion.

There is no need to use a County Development Plan to enforce Building Control Law!

IMO Its just another slowing tactic and anyother expense on a Client - upfront before "permission" is even considered! Disgraceful. Anyhow whats to stop a Client changing their building construction after permission is granted? Changes will make the planning calculations obsolite.

Only in Ireland would you be asked to prove your design meets a regulation before an authority will consider granting it. Such a step will only slow the application process and make planning a little more expensive for ordinary people.

sydthebeat

RKQ wrote: »

I completely disagree.... Planning permission has nothing to do with Building Regulation Compliance. Now 6 MORE reports must be included! Another waste of paper and time in my opinion.

There is no need to use a County Development Plan to enforce Building Control Law!

IMO Its just another slowing tactic and anyother expense on a Client - upfront before "permission" is even considered! Disgraceful. Anyhow whats to stop a Client changing their building construction after permission is granted? Changes will make the planning calculations obsolite.

Only in Ireland would you be asked to prove your design meets a regulation before an authority will consider granting it. Such a step will only slow the application process and make planning a little more expensive for ordinary people.

If this 'statement of intent' is on file and states to intend to build an a3 rated dwelling, will you as a certifier sign it off in compliance with planning if a final ber results in a B3 rating?????? How do you think any such cert would hold up in any future sale???

In the absense of any meaningful 'building control' in Ireland, its a huge step towards educating Joe Public as to the issues behind construction and energy conservation. As both a designer and a specifier i think its a great step. Maybe its time we took steps towards a more integrated planning / building system anyway.
It must be noted that they are not asking for a construction spec, just a 'statment of intent'.

The way i see it i will need to sit down with the client at design stage and explain to him/her why i am suggesting the kitchen / living room in the south west of the plan, and not in the north east corner as they have 'sketched' on their own 'design'!!!

RKQ

sydthebeat wrote: »

If this 'statement of intent' is on file and states to intend to build an a3 rated dwelling, will you as a certifier sign it off in compliance with planning if a final ber results in a B3 rating?????? How do you think any such cert would hold up in any future sale???

The way i see it i will need to sit down with the client at design stage and explain to him/her why i am suggesting the kitchen / living room in the south west of the plan, and not in the north east corner as they have 'sketched' on their own 'design'!!!

Exactly Syd, you have spotted the danger! If I state B2 in my statement of intent - then there is no incentive to try to achieve A2! (As budget may allow)

Whats makes Kilkenny County Council feel its Planning Department is superior in some way to the thinking of the Department of the Envirnoment? There are 26 Counties plus City & Urban Councils, in this Country - it would make sense if they were all working to the same standards -application forms.

A Development Plan has a life of 5 years whereas TGD L has been revised quite often in the last 5 years. Kilkenny are in danger of having a "standard" that could be below standard or behind a future standard, revised next year - this IMO is extremely dangerous.

Let us get planning permission first, then achieve compliance with Building Control. Planning permission lasts 5 years - alot can change in 5 years.

Especially as we are in Recession most can only afford minimum standards but in the future this could change.

We all want better buildings but IMO this is not the way to go about it.

DOCARCH

Have to agree with RKQ on this one. Sounds like a great idea on the face of it but in practice it's a bit mad!

Many/most planning permissions have a lifespan of 5 years - by 2010, we will probably have another new/updated Part L - sounds like this measure will only complicate complinace with planning permission? *

I am a firm believer that, after planning and prior to construction, there should be a Building Regulations application (for all the B. Regs - not just Part .

* was typing the above when you editted your post! Great minds, etc., etc.:D

sydthebeat

but you must note that it only states compliance with Part L of the building regs.... it doest state what issue.... so part L 2010 will be applicable when it kicks in....

i think you are taking this out of context as to its use...

ive always argued, agreeing with your opinions, that any generic BER is useless as there is currently a vast schism between planning and construction....

But i think the theory behind this is is to get into the mindset of energy conservation prior to design, and not just at construction stage when may elemental mistakes could already have been made.

Whats to stop any planning authority from putting in a condition to state all new dwellings should be A rated????
there is a general consensus here that building control is terrible, so what is wrong with a local authority asking a client to ensure compliance with part l?? its a start!

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

...what is wrong with a local authority asking a client to ensure compliance with part l??

Who will police it? Planning officers? In fairness most don't know the Planning Regulations let alone the Building Regulations.

sinnerboy

I must agree with RKQ . This is costless empty gesturing on the part of a local authority in the absence of costly building control enforcement

Who will bear the cost - we will . In this climate clients are expecting costs to fall - not rise . All the extra ( BER ) training and upskilling will be rewarded by an increased unpaid workload . Clients will just consider "that's what you do anyway ?"

I have observed in other threads that I have noticed that LA's around me are becoming more and more inclined to invalidate on more and more nit picking points and to seek more and more further information followed by clarification of further information . Keeps desks full you see....

This development offers further opportunity for the those public sector workers to increase their paid workload and our unpaid workload .

We need better buildings , for sure . I'm sorry , but I don't believe that is what's behind this ....

RKQ

Its 5th January, BER is Law.

We don't need a Planner asking for proof that we intend to comply with the Law. Let the Council's Building Control Officiers inspect, if they wish.

Building Control is Law, BER is Law we don't need more laws / conditions / onus of proof.

Lets enforce the Laws we have. Non compliance is futile!:D

DOCARCH

Syd - I totally agree with your sentimnet of awareness, etc. I just think this measure is a blurring of the 'due process' of planning. Planning is planning and building control/regulations is a seperarte matter/seperate legislation, etc.

One small part of the reason behind the 2000 Planning Acts was to regularise/standardise the process of making planning applications across the country - as we all know - this really has not worked!

Are people now going to have their planning applications invalidated because they have not submitted calculations or the Council deem the calculations to be inadequte?

I think I am just weary and wary and fed up of anything to do with County Councils and planning and any additions to this process is only going to frustrate the process more!

The Council could work it another way and make it a condition of planning that a provisional BER be submitted to the Council to show compliance with Part L, prior to construction - along with your Commencemnet Notice.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Who will police it? Planning officers? In fairness most don't know the Planning Regulations let alone the Building Regulations.

whats the difference between the certification situation before and after the implementation of this policy????.... none....

at the moment the only 'policing' is the self certification process where the client hires a certifier. This system has its flaws as it allows for 'cowboy' activities.... its not an independant certification process (i know, thats for another debate)

my point is, all reputable certifiers will (or should) ensure compliance with part L before certifying.... if a condition, or statement on file stating the intention to build, an a rated dwelling, its then up to the reputable certifier to ensure this happens.... this is who will police it.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

my point is, all reputable certifiers will (or should) ensure compliance with part L before certifying.... if a condition, or statement on file stating the intention to build, an a rated dwelling, its then up to the reputable certifier to ensure this happens.... this is who will police it.

What happens, for whatever reason, the end result is a B1 - do you go back for retention!

IMO, councils are black and white - there is no grey!

RKQ

DOCARCH wrote: »

The Council could work it another way and make it a condition of planning that a provisional BER be submitted to the Council to show compliance with Part L, prior to construction - along with your Commencemnet Notice.

Docarch has hit the nail on the head. If the Council was truly concerned with compliance they already have the power to issue a Condition of Planning.

Validation is difficult enough without different Councils bringing in different forms (again!) Maybe the Councils should comply with Planning Law - 2000 Planning Acts.

Sinnerboy is right - at the moment BER is a separate service - if Kilkenny policy is followed BER will become a standard part of planning permission - an unpaid extra as far as the client is concerned.

Why have every change to planning applications resulted in more work and complications for us, so life is made easier for the Planner? - 6 copies, outlined in red, 12 os maps outlined in red, 4 - 8 page form, EPA test, levels (contours even for all existing dwellings in Carlow ) ITM Coordinates etc, etc

Certification isn't perfect but at the end of the day it works. It will always come down to one persons decision be he a Building Inspector in the UK or a fully Insured Certifier in Ireland. ( The Courts deal with the Cowboys)

No6

Interesting Debate guys heres my twopence worth, as an Arch tech and a BER Assessor while I do think the earlier you start think about energy effiency in design the better putting it as a requirement of the development plan is adding another unnecessary expense on all applicants. A provisional BER cert is virtually useless as in theory I could make virtually any house A rated but in practice the cost will be prohibitive and most people will just about manage to comply with the current Part L Non assessors could of course just download DEAP and do the assessment themselves and send in the printout to the LA saving the cost of a preliminary cert to the client, the planners will not understand one figure on it (no offence to any planners reading) as they will not be given any training on the subject so in effect it dosen't even have to be anyway right and is worthless. The idea of the preliminary BER certs is for when people used to buy houses off plans (remember those crazy days!!) that the provisional rating could be given based on the specifications which wouldn't change (that much!!)

Oh and don't forget Gormley wants passive house standard on all new houses by 2016 only 7 years left!!! :eek:

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

What happens, for whatever reason, the end result is a B1 - do you go back for retention!

IMO, councils are black and white - there is no grey!

I have no idea how this is going to be implemented... i just recieved the notification in the post today, but i must admit that i am delighted with the policy.

Firstly, it will involve the BER assessment at the design stage (which it should be anyway)
Secondly, it will push out the Macky D type assessor out of the process as the designer will have to know and be able to dynamically use the DEAP software.
Thirdly, it will focus clients minds at the outset about energy conservation. they will come to understand the merits of solar gains and their 'free' implementation when compared to high cost renewbles.
Forthly, they will understand, at the design stage, the requirement for a continuous input from the design professional throughout the build, hopefully to be doing construction drawings and on site supervision to ensure the best standards are met. And hopefully this will push the 'direct labour' type disaster builds out of the market.

As for this being included as a 'unpaid' service of the designer, thats to be looked at from a business point of view... but i think swings and roundabouts will apply here.

DOCARCH

No6 wrote: »

A provisional BER cert is virtually useless as in theory I could make virtually any house A rated but in practice the cost will be prohibitive.........the planners will not understand one figure on it (no offence to any planners reading) as they will not be given any training on the subject

As No.6 has said - it's easy to achieve an A rated house/building on the drawing board!

At least if a provisional BER was to be submitted just prior to construction - along with your commencemnet notice - your construction methods, materials, insulation, renewables, etc., will have been finalised and costed so this would be a far more accurate picture of compliance.

(Being an architect and BER assessor) I have loads of clients who have great intentions until the whole thing is costed out/tendered for! While every projcet will/must comply with Part L the rating that will actually be achieved may be less than the aspirational rating prior to going out to tender.

IMO just another box ticking excercise! Kilkenny will be full of 'theoretical' A rated houses - which Gormley will love - the reality, imo, will be different - lost of nearlys!

RKQ

Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly and Forth - untrue as people are fully aware of these issues already. Oil was quite expensive afew months ago! Most adults are interested in efficient homes.

People are not sheep - they do not need to be "re-educated". Most people on Boards.ie are interested in achieving the warmest, most cost effective building they can afford. They seek information from us in their free time. I am very impressed with peoples interest in construction and their willingness to learn.

A Development Plan is not required to validate the need for a BER rating.

The general public are aware and in favour of BER. The Council would seem to be more interested in complicating the planning process and maintaining public sector positions.

Planning Departments need to concentrate on planning law not Building Regulations. A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Kilkenny's policy is a mistake, as time will show.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Firstly, it will involve the BER assessment at the design stage (which it should be anyway)
Secondly, it will push out the Macky D type assessor out of the process as the designer will have to know and be able to dynamically use the DEAP software.
Thirdly, it will focus clients minds at the outset about energy conservation. they will come to understand the merits of solar gains and their 'free' implementation when compared to high cost renewbles.
Forthly, they will understand, at the design stage, the requirement for a continuous input from the design professional throughout the build, hopefully to be doing construction drawings and on site supervision to ensure the best standards are met. And hopefully this will push the 'direct labour' type disaster builds out of the market.

Again, I absolutley agree with the sentiments above.

My cynicism lies with the Councils in general - if the planning process and LAs in general were well-oiled, streamlined and efficient, I might agree. I think we all know better!

No6

I'm inclined to agree with you RKQ it is a mistake for it to be looked for at planning stage as a requirement, as you say people who are intrested in energy efficient design will be looking at it from the start anyway, another big jump in the price of oil (or ahem gas!!) will refocus the mind on energy efficiency in design, a lot of people would like to have an A rated house or passive house but when you actually price the improvements required over a standard build it is usually too expensive and so the standard is reduced, instead of the size of the house!! and when push comes to shove if it really comes down to it, given the choice between more a more energy efficient house or a super cool desginer kitchen what will 99% of Iriah people choose!!!:D

I suspect its a move on behalf of the co council to increase their workloads so they can say look at all the additional work we now have to do. I remember a time (vagely) when you could make a planning application by filling in a form and paying the fee, drawings could be provided if they were really needed!!!:D There was also only about 5 people working in the planning office then instead of about 30 now!!!:D

sydthebeat

RKQ wrote: »

Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly and Forth - untrue as people are fully aware of these issues already. Oil was quite expensive afew months ago! Most adults are interested in efficient homes.

People are not sheep - they do not need to be "re-educated". Most people on Boards.ie are interested in achieving the warmest, most cost effective building they can afford. They seek information from us in their free time. I am very impressed with peoples interest in construction and their willingness to learn.

A Development Plan is not required to validate the need for a BER rating.

The general public are aware and in favour of BER. The Council would seem to be more interested in complicating the planning process and maintaining public sector positions.

Planning Departments need to concentrate on planning law not Building Regulations. A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Kilkenny's policy is a mistake, as time will show.

again, i think we will agree to disagree....

you make two opposing points above, one one hand you say you are impressed with 'people who are not sheep' and are willing to seek information... yet on the other you state that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'... which i agree with. A lot of posters on this forum are trying to build without full time professional input.... its no wonder they are interested. I think this is dangerous....

from my experience there are very few client who know and fully understand the construction process at design stage... there are many who dont understand the construction stage AFTER its completion as well.... as has been shown by many posts here. What the policy will do, in my opinion, is introduce them at a necessary time as to the intricicies of construction....

whether its a mistake or not, time will tell....
whether or not it turns into a bureaucratic process that hinders the planning process, again time will tell, but im willing to wait and see....

topcatcbr

I have been reading this for a while now without offering an opinion. So now here it is. I dont think it is a mistake for a designer to be mindfull of energy effecient design when actually designing. I know insulation can be increased or reduced during construction but the fundamentals of energy effecient design start else where. Orientation and size of windows and plan shape should be considered first IMO. Most of the designers here I know are well aware of this but their is still alot of houses designed for one site and copyied for another site with little regard for the consequences. Eg north facing sunrooms. Ive seem a good few. I even seen one reciently in cork where my friend (a building developer) employed an architect to design homes for a small housing estate in cork. The same plan was used for all homes which is fine but half the homes had the sunroom to the north as a result. Not fine. a small amount of redesign (Mirror) would have solved this. My friend was blisfully unaware of this until i pointed it out that those homes would not be as energy effecient as a result.

If this measure will improve the likes of this or even make designers more intune with current thinking then it may be a good thing. If you have gone to the trouble of doing the calcs then why not show it.

It is extra work
But resistance is futile:P

RKQ

sydthebeat wrote: »

again, i think we will agree to disagree....

you make two opposing points above, one one hand you say you are impressed with 'people who are not sheep' and are willing to seek information... yet on the other you state that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'... which i agree with. A lot of posters on this forum are trying to build without full time professional input.... its no wonder they are interested. I think this is dangerous....
....

I think you need to read my post Syd:eek:

I didn't write opposing points... let me explain.
People are not sheep, they are educated and want to build the best house they can afford. They are interested in building Green, economic, efficient homes. All my clients are fully aware of BER and have embraced the process at design stage. They are eager to learn.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, read in contect, referred to Planners. (No offense to Planners). Planners are not Building Control Officiers, Fire Officiers, Roads Engineers,Envirnoment Technicians or BER Assessors. They have a tought enough job dealing with scale, contect, bulk and Town planning. They should not have to deal with and are not qualified to assess BER Reports.

While north facing conservatories are crazy, it wasn't spotted by the Planner either, as permission was granted. Kilkenny policy will not increase work for BER Assessors. It could damage BER in the publics eye, if it is seen as a tax. (Kilkenny is alone so far in requiring this - a tax on Kilkenny residents)

It can only delay and complicate the planning process. The County Development Plan is not place for compliance with Document L.

archtech

While the policy is good it terms of raising public awareness and forcing people to consider energy efficiency (their are still people who don't care or want to know), its not the way to go. It would be far better, if the local authorities lobbied for a proper building control system, that ensured building regulations were enforced and implemented properly. All the regulations and laws in the world are no good unless they are enforced. If our building regulations were enforced correctly since 1992, the standard of building would be much higher.

At the end of the day Planners are planners, and should be accessing planning applications on planning policies and not on BER performance. If planning policy was to be "carbon" focused, there would be far tighter controls on one off housing where car dependency is an issue, we would also see far higher densities in towns to make public transport feasible, rather than the acres and acres of semi-ds which have been dotted around the country, again car dependant, in most situations.

Another Irish solution to a problem, if you ask me, rather than taking the bull by the horns and looking at the overall picture, we'll build A rated houses but not bother with looking at the overall picture... how we get to the house, where its located in terms of services etc. Although it has it faults the BREAMM System, to me it a better system, in terms of trying to achieve good "carbon neutral" planning policy.

Talwin

When i comes to signing off for compliance with planning and the building has dropped from an A to a B what would the implications be. Would this Mena that it dosnt comply with Drawingand documents as lodged as per the conditions ?

RKQ

Talwin wrote: »

When i comes to signing off for compliance with planning and the building has dropped from an A to a B what would the implications be. Would this Mena that it dosnt comply with Drawingand documents as lodged as per the conditions ?

Yes, this is the problem! :eek:
So to protect yourself you'd have to state B3 on the permission application, loosing the incentive to improve the BER rating! Or put in hoped for rating and apply for a new permission at Tender Stage when reality of costs are revealed.

Or you could apply twice for each application - once for retention of BER! Now who would benefit from 2 applications per applicant?

"Oh we are so busy this year, 50% increase - no need to cut our department!"

Talwin

Just thinking about it more i imagine it could be covered under a non material alteration .

Though still this is more paper work that could be done with out.

Would be interest a planning authority trying to enforce a particular rating on a building.

sydthebeat

you are all making wild speculation as to how this policy will be applied, and the consequences after.

Lets see how it goes, how it affects a planning application and how it will be introduced into conditions.

As a point of interest, planners can take environmental technical issues such as on site waste water treatment into account when determining an application.... they can also take engineering issues such as sightlines into account... why now should they not take energy conservation issues into account??? What if it becomes a condition of planning that every dwelling should be A rated??? wouldnt that be a great thing!!

No6

Part L will be changing again next year to achieve a 60% improvement on part L 2005. By 2016 John Gormley wants to have passive standard (A rated) mandatory for all buildings (not just houses!!) Given the way things are going there will probably be a few years slippage but it will most likely happen. In theory what Kilkenny are doing is very good but as we all know in Practice it will most likely end up being a mess and people may see it as another Tax (along with the carbon taxes, water charges etc etc!!) and it will just be another item to request further information and clarification of further information on.

RKQ

I agree fully No.6
Personally I'd like to see BER Assessors as a separate Professional Consultant. A person that is highly trained, registered by the Government and highly experienced.

I want to work with the BER Assessor at the design stage, with a separate fee to be paid. Just like FAS approved EPA Soil Test Panels.
The BER Assessor will work with me and the client to achieve a high rating, the highest possible at construction stage. This process may be quite fluid, allowing the highest rating.

In time the BER Asseror will be a separate Profession just like Architect, Q.S or Building Surveyor! That would really be great.

If I must become an BER Assessor just to keep my applications up to date, then so be it. But it will cost me time and money which there will be a slow payback on.

I will only do work for my own clients and like many I won't be able to specialise in the field. The profession of Assessor will not exist or will be very watered down! (Less specialist = less work)

The process of improved "stated" BER rating will be fraught will legal difficulties - certification. 5 year County Development Plans will be constantly revised, in line with Building Regulation revisions - due to time scales passing ammendments, certain Councils will have differening BER requirements!:eek:

Kilkenny may have opened a can of worms that may not achieve any positive outcome. In theory it might be a good idea but as BER is now required on all dwellings, I don't see the need.

topcatcbr

I do not see this as a seperate function but as a part of the architectural technicians function as a designer and part of the building surveyors function for existing and renovation works. I think the more us techs can up skill and provide a service the less likly we are to be overlooked in favour of the new batch of (economy) architects which are being trained around the country.
We dont need a new profession IMO we need to show the value of the professions we already have.

No6

I agree fully No.6

Cheers!!!:D

Personally I'd like to see BER Assessors as a separate Professional Consultant. A person that is highly trained, registered by the Government and highly experienced.

Too Late, Non Domestic Assessors will have a higher level of training & the SEi Exam when it comes in may remove a few of the very under qualified
.

I want to work with the BER Assessor at the design stage, with a separate fee to be paid. Just like FAS approved EPA Soil Test Panels.
The BER Assessor will work with me and the client to achieve a high rating, the highest possible at construction stage. This process may be quite fluid, allowing the highest rating.

Give me a shout for your next project, it can be done by eamil!!:D

In time the BER Asseror will be a separate Profession just like Architect, Q.S or Building Surveyor! That would really be great.

Maybe maybe not depends I see it as another feather in my cap and in the future energy efficient design will be a major part of the design process.

If I must become an BER Assessor just to keep my applications up to date, then so be it. But it will cost me time and money which there will be a slow payback on.

I will only do work for my own clients and like many I won't be able to specialise in the field. The profession of Assessor will not exist or will be very watered down! (Less specialist = less work)

The process of improved "stated" BER rating will be fraught will legal difficulties - certification. 5 year County Development Plans will be constantly revised, in line with Building Regulation revisions - due to time scales passing ammendments, certain Councils will have differening BER requirements!:eek:

I would suggest if you are not interested in being an assessor that you download the software and the manuals and spend a bit of time learning how to use it, most of it is farily straightforward. You can then use it as a design tool and produce whatever statements you require for planning. Its only if a Preliminary BER certificate is required that you will need to be a registered Assessor or employ one. I would suspect that any conditions attached to a planning permission relating to BER's will relate to compliance with Part L which any building will have to comply with anyways so there should be no issue for compliance in that case.

Kilkenny may have opened a can of worms that may not achieve any positive outcome. In theory it might be a good idea but as BER is now required on all dwellings, I don't see the need.

In theory its a good idea but in Practice... Nice Juicy Worm anyone!!!:D I'm just glad I don't do any work in Kilkenny!!!!.

My personal opinion is that you will find that as Development plans are being revised in various counties more and more little things that cost money are now being required and the planning fees for dwellings are also being looked at so while The dept may not be able to prohibit one off housing for political reasons they can do their best to make it very very expensive and difficult..... now wheres that pretty little grassy Knoll till I go shoot me a ....??? !!!:D

RKQ

No6 wrote: »

Cheers!!!:D
In theory its a good idea but in Practice... Nice Juicy Worm anyone!!!:D I'm just glad I don't do any work in Kilkenny!!!!.

My personal opinion is that you will find that as Development plans are being revised in various counties more and more little things that cost money are now being required and the planning fees for dwellings are also being looked at so while The dept may not be able to prohibit one off housing for political reasons they can do their best to make it very very expensive and difficult..... now wheres that pretty little grassy Knoll till I go shoot me a ....??? !!!:D

Excellent post No.6, the best of 2009! ( Expect afew email!:D)

Brothers there speaks a man with his finger on the pulse!

sydthebeat

Just got a reply back from kilkenny co co after a request for clarification..

heres the main gist....


Kilkenny County Council has decided to include this Item on our Planning Application Form principally as a method of advising clients of their obligation to comply with the Building Regulations in relation to BER.

Question 12 (b) of our Planning Application can be answered by either YES or No.

* If the answer is Yes, you are directed to the www.sei.ie website
from which you can complete the “Statement of Intent” – no fee
applicable, and submit same with your planning application. This
“Statement of Intent” is different to the “BER Certificate” which can only be carried out by a Registered BER Assessor (complete list of
Assessors available from the sei.ie website).
* If the answer is No, you can submit your planning application as
previously.

The Planning Department’s only role/input with BER (at this time) is to bring this matter to your attention. You should direct further queries to Rory McConnon Energy Agency Manager,

No6

And here was I under the impression that there was a standard planning application form countrywide!!! :rolleyes: I must find this statemnet of intent on SEI's website.

ManFromAtlantis

wow..........thats what i thought, its not their ( co co )role. i know someone who has had to get a 'not quite a ber cert but something close or what ever youre having yourself statement' as requested by the local authority in question.........€200 for this. co co dont care its only money . waste of time . glad someone brought this up.

why pick out one build reg. if so what more can you say except ' will be built in acc with building regs' no point in re writing all of the regs to show this.

sydthebeat

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

wow..........thats what i thought, its not their ( co co )role. i know someone who has had to get a 'not quite a ber cert but something close or what ever youre having yourself statement' as requested by the local authority in question.........€200 for this. co co dont care its only money . waste of time . glad someone brought this up.

why pick out one build reg. if so what more can you say except ' will be built in acc with building regs' no point in re writing all of the regs to show this.

how does it cost them €200????

according to the email its free on the sei website.... i think someone is screwing them over....

although i havent a clue where it is on the sei website either.. and i have made every effort to find it!!!

sinnerboy

It is simply civil servants protecting their own jobs by expanding their own workload .

What a nice existence . No product to deliver or wealth to generate .

Another "issue" to hang an invalidation/RFI/CRFI on - nothing else .

Why not look for Statement of Intent for

Radon prevention measures
Structural calculations
Part F/J/K/M compliance .....

Wait a minute - sounds like the UK Building Control Application process !

....... except it isn't that

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

It is simply civil servants protecting their own jobs by expanding their own workload .

What a nice existence . No product to deliver or wealth to generate .

Another "issue" to hang an invalidation/RFI/CRFI on - nothing else .

Why not look for Statement of Intent for

Radon prevention measures
Structural calculations
Part F/J/K/M compliance .....

Wait a minute - sounds like the UK Building Control Application process !

....... except it isn't that

it cant result in an invalidation.... its a supplementary question... which i know many la's have now included on application forms, there supplementray questions about rural housing, commercial applicatona and agricultural applications...

and as the reply states you can simply say no... now i dont know what the fallout is if you say no... but it is an option....

ManFromAtlantis

sydthebeat wrote: »

how does it cost them €200????

according to the email its free on the sei website.... i think someone is screwing them over....

although i havent a clue where it is on the sei website either.. and i have made every effort to find it!!!

when they rang the co co in question, they did not know exactly what was required as part of the planning application, they suggested that they get a ' something close to a ber cert' but said that it didnt have to be a full? cert. anyways they said to go to a ber assessor for a report on intent ???? upshot €200 part of the prob sorry the real prob was that the planners themselves didnt know what they wanted.

actually it was the reason for an rfi. after stating that a ber cert blah blah blah would be got eh, as u are supposed to get.....eh.....like every other build reg will also be complied with.......................ah........meh.

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

it cant result in an invalidation.... its a supplementary question... which i know many la's have now included on application forms, there supplementray questions about rural housing, commercial applicatona and agricultural applications...

and as the reply states you can simply say no... now i dont know what the fallout is if you say no... but it is an option....

Syd , I don't buy it . Have to wait and see how it pans out in implementation but I have a funny feeling ......

RKQ

Thanks for the clarification Syd... but I have to agree with No.6, Sinnerboy and ManFromAtlantis. Its not County Council remit - BER is Building Control!

This is IMO a slippery slope, an unnecessary complication that will cause confusion, involve extra paperwork and probably increase invalidations (no-one will be sure so if in doubt then invalidate!)

BER is here, its well known about and IMO the Council don't need to have a method of advising clients of their obligation to comply with the Building Regulations - as Building Regulations have been law since 1992.:D

topcatcbr

RKQ wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Syd... but I have to agree with No.6, Sinnerboy and ManFromAtlantis. Its not County Council remit - BER is Building Control!

This is IMO a slippery slope, an unnecessary complication that will cause confusion, involve extra paperwork and probably increase invalidations (no-one will be sure so if in doubt then invalidate!)

BER is here, its well known about and IMO the Council don't need to have a method of advising clients of their obligation to comply with the Building Regulations - as Building Regulations have been law since 1992.:D

Technicaly you are right it is a matter for BC and you are also right that it is well known about but as a BER assessor I have heard many times "I am not going to worry about this until i am asked to produce it". The general feeling is that nothing is being done so there is no need to comply.
With the BCO being under resourced before this new regulation I cannot see them making any impact. I do know SEI we asked during the workshop at the energy show last year to contact the local authority to ask for this during planning. It is certinly a more effective propersition than to wait for the BCO to ask for it.
Maybe they did.

RKQ

topcatcbr wrote: »

Technicaly you are right it is a matter for BC and you are also right that it is well known about but as a BER assessor I have heard many times "I am not going to worry about this until i am asked to produce it". The general feeling is that nothing is being done so there is no need to comply.

This won't help BER Assessors in any way!
I am asking for the BER rating and documents confirming this!

All my clients are given a list of registered BER Assessors and asked to contact one to work with me. I will not sign a future Certificate of Compliance, without a BER Cert and a copy of the Assessors PI.

I need pliminary advise at design stage - options, cost etc. (I like passive ideas. All my designs are orientated around the path of the sun etc)

I will need details and specifications prior to tender. I advise all Client to "copper fasten" the BER Cert during planning - giving them 8 weeks to research, cost and decide on construction type, heating, ventilation etc.

(How come Planners don't query position of disabled access ramp? It is a Building Regulation - TGD M. Seems we'll have a new Certificate for disabled Access soon!)
I'm affraid BER, airtightness and other construction improvements are going to have to be policed by us, the Certifiers. Wish we had some National support now.

One things for sure - non compliance with Building Control Act is not an option.:D

(House Sellers seem informed about BER - maybe Solicitors are advising them of the requirement - I have had numberous enquiries.)

fishfoodie

RKQ wrote: »

(House Sellers seem informed about BER - maybe Solicitors are advising them of the requirement - I have had numberous enquiries.)

Hmmm, have you looked at Daft lately ?

There is an almost total absence of BER ratings in advertisements on the website.

topcatcbr

As for enquiries dont get me started. The amount of enquiries i have got asking for different types of houses on free email accounts or private phone no. I am convinced these were mostly other assessors trying to establish a price guide for themselves. Ask them to leave a phone no and they loose interest. The anoying thing is my price guide is on my website for all to see if they only bothered to go and read it.

You have to answer them though just in case.

Poor Uncle Tom

RKQ wrote: »

I'm affraid BER, airtightness and other construction improvements are going to have to be policed by us, the Certifiers....

This is the point.

Making BER part of a planning application is just giving the planners
another stick to beat us with.

BER is part of the Building Regulations.....treat it that way.....end of.

No6

I'd say we're all getting a bit of that topcatcbr, theres some innovative pricing / advertising out there, I just found one using google addwords which is 169 for an assessment, untill you go into the site and look at it its 169 for a studio apartment, ie a bedsit!!! everything else is dearer and more in line with other prices!!

RKQ

Kilkenny County Council held a meeting last friday morning, to discuss their Ber requirement, on their planning application form. Architects, Technicians, Agents, BER Assesors etc attended.

The form can be completed by the applicants Agent by using SEI DEAP calculator and does not need to by done by a BER Assessor. Alot of the points raised on this forum were raised at the meeting.

Failure to fill in the BER question will not invalidate the application however the information may be sought as an FI.

No6

RKQ wrote: »

Kilkenny County Council held a meeting last friday morning, to discuss their Ber requirement, on their planning application form. Architects, Technicians, Agents, BER Assesors etc attended.

The form can be completed by the applicants Agent by using SEI DEAP calculator and does not need to by done by a BER Assessor. Alot of the points raised on this forum were raised at the meeting.

Failure to fill in the BER question will not invalidate the application however the information may be sought as an FI.

Did I miss something or are we not supposed to have a standard planning application form through out the country? I havn't seen any questions relating to BER's on it.

That aside what is the point in this approach by Kilkenny Co Council, if anybody can fill it in it's meaningless, just another piece of paper for the planners to tick a box on. If you say you are going to build an A rated house is that going to be conditioned as part of the planning permission or do you just have to comply with the building regulations? A much easier way to encourage / enforce BER's is to put a condition on planning that a copy of the published BER be submitted prior to first occupation (therefore meaNing you cant comply with planning unless the condition is fulfilled!!)

RKQ

I agree with you No.6.
I feel that requiring a BER cert from a BER Assessor would also be unfair, as it would be an extra expense on a Client that may not get planning permission.
As said above it would be better to have a requirement for BER at commencement notice stage or Certificate of Compliance stage, once permission is granted and all construction decisions and tender documents have been finalised.

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

Did I miss something or are we not supposed to have a standard planning application form through out the country? I havn't seen any questions relating to BER's on it.

That aside what is the point in this approach by Kilkenny Co Council, if anybody can fill it in it's meaningless, just another piece of paper for the planners to tick a box on. If you say you are going to build an A rated house is that going to be conditioned as part of the planning permission or do you just have to comply with the building regulations? A much easier way to encourage / enforce BER's is to put a condition on planning that a copy of the published BER be submitted prior to first occupation (therefore meaNing you cant comply with planning unless the condition is fulfilled!!)

all the valid points raised in this thread were raised at the meeting.

The end result of this policy is

1. The ideology behind it is to focus developers and applicants onto renewable energies and building reg compliance at design stage.

2. They are not bound at all at incorporate what is included in the assessment

3. all that is required is a screen grab of the results page from the DEAP calculations which should show compliance.

4. It is agreed and understood from the planning section that compliance with building regs is wholly the remit of building control.

5. this cannot invalidate an application, but if its not submitted you can be fairly sure it will be requested at FI.


Now, i know what all of you are thinking.......
This will just become a desk exercise in your office prior to submission, one which you wont get paid for.
As its just the screengrab thats required, whatever is put in the assessment is generic


personally, i think the only positive to come from this initive is to eduate 'certifiers' as to what THEY HAVE TO do in order to certify compliance with part L. In my opinion, all certifiers should have to do a training course to actually use the software, as its not the easiest to navigate, and some mad assumptions are made. But thats not going to happen. Any certifier who hasnt done the training course should practise, practise, paractise and use the manual at all times.