Building Control in Ireland. (Mod Warning post #10)

woody1

Will there ever be a push for a proper building control system in this country
with building control officers appointed by the local authorities to every site and buildings to be inspected regularly and at definite intervals,
with the builder / owner having to consult with them re any deviations, be that from planning, construction, fire safety or whatever... and would help architects or whoever is running the project greatly as well,
i think the uk have a system like this and in my opinion its the way to go, with the building sector being so quiet now could be as good a time as any to phase it in..

SBR

What I don't understand is why do Architects certify building works if they are non compliant?

gbee

Maybe. On air locally I heard of the practice whereby steel rods were inserted into cement structures, like foundations and supporting walls which were removed as soon as the inspector left the site before the cement hardened.

So this is an indication of the level of inspection necessary ~ sometimes one would wonder why whey inspect at all ~ when pouring a flyover locally I personally saw a concrete load 'sand castle' collapse and yet the load was allowed to be poured.

BryanF

woody1 wrote: »

will there be a push for a proper building control system in this country
with building control officers appointed by the local authorities to every site and buildings to be inspected regularly and at definite intervals,
with the builder / owner having to consult with them re any deviations, be that from planning, construction, fire safety or whatever... and would help architects or whoever is running the project greatly as well,
i think the uk have a system like this and in my opinion its the way to go, with the building sector being so quiet now could be as good a time as any to phase it in..

many have been screaming fort his for years, bring it on..

BryanF

SBR wrote: »

What I don't understand is why do Architects certify building works if they are non compliant?

the architect only offers a certificate of opinion on compliance.. once things are closed up how can you tell... what happened in the boom was many developers fired their architects after tender stage and got different ones in to sign off, so there was in-effect no supervision on site...

Corkbah

SBR wrote: »

What I don't understand is why do Architects certify building works if they are non compliant?

what I dont understand is why there is nobody ever charged or blamed for building non-compliant building.

DOCARCH

SBR wrote: »

What I don't understand is why do Architects certify building works if they are non compliant?

It's not as simple as that! There is no obligation to have an architect carry out inspections during the work or sign off. It is possible to have works signed off by an engineer?

There is also a standard Opinion on Compliance that could be used where the architects have no invlovement in the construction. Not really worth the paper it is written on!

In this country, like the banks again, this is an issue of light touch regulation.

We need a system similar to the UK where a building control officer has to visit site a number of times during construction to ensure the works are being built in accordance with building regulations.

DOCARCH

Corkbah wrote: »

what I dont understand is why there is nobody ever charged or blamed for building non-compliant building.

It all falls back to the builder/developer. It is their obligation to build in accordance with the Building Regulations - nobody elses! Ignorance is no defence.

sydthebeat

Corkbah wrote: »

what I dont understand is why there is nobody ever charged or blamed for building non-compliant building.

http://www.nca.ie/eng/Research_Zone/Reports/Home_Construction/NCA-Home-construction-Volume-5.pdf

see above.. .particularly the conclusions.

In ireland we have a ridiculous 'self regulation' system where a build can happen where there is no inspection on any of the work, yet a product can be sold legally as suitable for performance.
As an architectural technician this is something ive flagged for years as being totally inadequate.

all self builders should realise this. If something goes wrong quite often theres no one singularly responsible. actually,

"Should a consumer purchase a dwelling become aware of non-compliance with building regulations, and bring the issue to the notice of the relevant Building Control Authority, the legislation allows the consumer to be designated as the party responsible for bringing the dwelling into a state of compliance."

Poor Uncle Tom

This thread has been edited to remove any reference to any particular situation regarding Non Compliance of Building Regulations. Please do not refer specifically to any case in particular as it is against Boards.ie rules, thank you.

DOCARCH

Thanks for putting back up this thread PUT.

From what I hear, if a building control system like the UK had been in place during the 'boom', we would required 12,000 building control officers! Apparantley, at the moment, there is 1 in Dublin City Council.

Rather the implementing a UK style syetem here, what I would expect now is some sort of new legislation or revision to the building control act to make it madatory to have an architect, arch tech or engineer (or other suitably qualifed professional) engaged for construction and carry out inspections at critical stages during construction and construction cannot continue until this inspection has been carried out.

Another very sensible suggestion (by Irish Housebuilders Assoc [?] on Primetime last night) would be the registration of building contractors to ensure that developments are built by suitably qualified builders!

I often have to tell buulders that the Building Regulations are building regulations - they are not architect regulations! How many builders have a comprehensive understanding of the Building Regulations? Not many I would suggest.

Carlow52

Having worked in two of the currently most denigrated industries: banking and building, in 3 continents over 35 years I offer the following:

Unless there is personal integrity and a firm moral compass within the individuals and companies that are subject to regulation, no amount of regulation will work.

sydthebeat

Carlow52 wrote: »

Unless there is personal integrity and a firm moral compass within the individuals and companies that are subject to regulation, no amount of regulation will work.

somewhat agree, however the moral aspect of regulation can be negated by a working, sufficient administration system. There is no point having regulation (in this case, we have a very workable and applicable building regulation system) when we do not have a working administration system to implement this regulation system.

ive said it many time, in the particular LA i do most of my work in, there is and has only been ONE building control officer for the whole 12 years ive been working. I have NEVER encountered a situation where this BCO has inspected a domestic build.... NEVER IN 12 YEARS !!!!.
It is simply not good enough to have a building control system where the inspecting officers accept 10-15% of new work inspection to be a success.

whether 12,000 building control officers would have been required or not is an aside. The system should be self funding, as the BER system is self funding.

In my opinion the system as it stands is good enough to be a successful 100% inspectorate system, but it falls down specifically at local government BCO level.

It also falls down, to a equally important level, at the Law society factor where they accept 'certification' which is so diluted as to not be worth the paper its written on. 'Visual' 'inspection' 'substantial' 'opinion' 'to date' are all means of the certifier reducing responsibility. I do not blame certifiers in this because its the law society that has created the market by having a bargin basement level of certification.

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

Thanks for putting back up this thread PUT.

From what I hear, if a building control system like the UK had been in place during the 'boom', we would required 12,000 building control officers! .

I for one would be going for the state job:D

Poor Uncle Tom

What have we (Architects/Engineers/Arch Tech's/Surveyors/Etc.) ever done to promote the Building Regulations to Builders/Contractors apart from giving out about there lack of knowledge on same.

Have there ever been any courses or freshers on the updating of the regulations for Builders/Contractors? It should make things a hell of a lot easier for us if there was. Maybe the CIF or some other regulatory body update their members, I genuinely don't know.

I do realise that it isn't our job to keep the contractors/builbers up to date with the regulations, but I'm just asking the question.

sydthebeat

fair point PUT.... but HOMEBOND were fairly active in yearly regulation seminars for builders etc.

The problem here is that there is no such thing in ireland as the 'professional' builder. Theres no statutory requirement of education, registration or continuous development for any such 'builder'.

personally, and i would think most guys here would agree, there are particular builders whom we know that are excellent and keep well up to speed... and there are others that we wouldnt allow build a dog kennel.

actually, to answer your question, it happens that today a client has come back to us saying that "the 'builder' said he doesnt need construction drawings so why should i pay you for something i dont need."

Talk about banging your head against a wall!!!!!

the 'builder' simply doesnt want to be restricted to an instruction to which he has to adhere.

BryanF

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

What have we (Architects/Engineers/Arch Tech's/Surveyors/Etc.) ever done to promote the Building Regulations to Builders/Contractors apart from giving out about there lack of knowledge on same.

Have there ever been any courses or freshers on the updating of the regulations for Builders/Contractors? It should make things a hell of a lot easier for us if there was. Maybe the CIF or some other regulatory body update their members, I genuinely don't know.

I do realise that it isn't our job to keep the contractors/builders up to date with the regulations, but I'm just asking the question.

you would have expected that under FAS many do get a decent training, under the CIOB for instance contractors are obliged to do continuous professional development, but this doesn't necessarily take any specific form

I mean I know a few electricians who know their Reg's inside out because they'd kill some if they didn't.. as said elsewhere above, maybe it comes back to integrity!

this all reminds me of those weird studies, some of you may have seen, where one guy presses a button that electrocutes another guy just because he was told by a 3rd individual to do so.. the whole system is a revolving blame game with very little responsibility

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

......... they go along with a system which allows what is self certification, ............

i have dealt with that aspect here

It also falls down, to a equally important level, at the Law society factor where they accept 'certification' which is so diluted as to not be worth the paper its written on. 'Visual' 'inspection' 'substantial' 'opinion' 'to date' are all means of the certifier reducing responsibility. I do not blame certifiers in this because its the law society that has created the market by having a bargin basement level of certification.

its not the 'professionals' who have created this system. Its the law society and the legislation. The professionals are given the parameters in which to operate.

the 'morality' you refer to is reflected in the recompense the professional receives for providing the certification.
If it was statutory that a certifier had to 'supervise' every aspect of the construction (which would probably require perhaps approx 50+ visits on a standard domestic build) then of course the value of teh certification would be greatly increased. But of course... whos gonna pay the piper???

Shady builders will not want a certifier anywhere near their building site, and unfortunately the certification system and lack of building control allows for this.

heavily conditional Certificate of completion/compliance, knowing that Cert will be utilised in completing a sale/mortgage which ties in the purchaser to a 30 yr loan agreement, where little or no supervision has occured

actually, in most cases certs are not 'heavily conditioned'. to be heavily conditioned would imply actually, a high level of inspection in order to catagorise each non complaint regulation. The problem is with the bog standard certification that is acceptable by law society solicitors. This allows for a post completion, non intrusive visual inspection only. The law society accepts these certs as being sufficient, clients are in most cases only willing to pay for these services... so dont blame the professionals for providing what is asked for !!!

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

Perhaps someone from the '' Professions '' mentioned can explain the morality, of issuing a heavily conditional Certificate of completion/compliance, knowing that Cert will be utilised in completing a sale/mortgage which ties in the purchaser to a 30 yr loan agreement, where little or no supervision has occured.

You appear to be alluding to a specific case here. We are not going down that road. The thread is about Building Control (or lack of) in general.

Poor Uncle Tom

Does it all boil down to there not being any effective policing body in this country for the Building Regulations?

BryanF

martinn123 wrote: »

Perhaps someone from the '' Professions '' mentioned can explain the morality, of issuing a heavily conditional Certificate of completion/compliance, knowing that Cert will be utilised in completing a sale/mortgage which ties in the purchaser to a 30 yr loan agreement, where little or no supervision has occured.

So having designed a building, with some expertise, and years of training, they go along with a system which allows what is self certification, by the developer, backed up by a conditional Cert, from a Indemnified Professional, which is in fact worthless.

martinn, you post here regularly, so you know that most times the word arch comes up in an OP its about how much will one cost... most archs will be lucky to get paid for 5 visits to site during the whole building process, long ago they were also the Project Manager which is maybe where we need to go back to..

Carlow52

BryanF wrote: »

martinn, you post here regularly, so you know that most times the word arch comes up in an OP its about how much will one cost... most archs will be lucky to get paid for 5 visits to site during the whole building process, long ago they were also the Project Manager which is maybe where we need to go back to..

Most Op's just dont see the value in having a professional 'supervise' the work because its not seen as adding value.

If you, as a builder, know that the professional will pick up on sloppy work then the sloopy work wont get done, the professional comes, has a look-see, takes a few pics and goes. The OP sees this as 'no work' done by the professional and so in OP's mind, what was the point of the visit.

From the professional's perspective, a fixed price including X visits, puts pressure on the time spent on site.

While we may have decent regulations, there is no enforcement and certainly no serious or timely punishment for breaches.

While a simplistic example: time was u couldn't park illegally in Dublin, all the spots were taken already:D

Now with clamping/towing etc the behavior has changed.


As materials and methods become more advanced the need for supervision and training is becoming even more important, but as always who will pay.

During the boom, builders were very happy to pay for golf lessons for themselves.....

focus_mad

At the risk of sounding smart I am applying to all of the Local authorities now for a job

on a more serious note, I think we have all come across certificates of compliance for buildings that shouldn't have been given. Have had personal experience meself. The parents bought a old farmhouse and had an architect design and pm. (I was still in secondary). Let's just say it wasn't up to scratch, design and spec wise.

The numbers going around about inspection percentages is sheer madness. I cannot understand it. As one poster said they have experience of 1 inspector for 12 years. Shocking.

braftery

Ireland needs Building control.

All across Europe there are EN norms and building control for all aspects of construction work. In Ireland we have the "Homebond" Book and self regulation.

However on its own Building Control will not succeed.

We need skill training, Apprenticeships, Craft and Skill Guilds.

We need a culture where workers are proud of their work and wont settle for "ah it'll be ok, sure the next trade can cover it up"

If a foundation is off level or off square it needs to be corrected and the next trade not let onto the site until it is.

Most of all we need proper management systems in place on building sites.

Proper Programming of works
Good workmanship
Individual Responsibility
Regular Supervision and Checks
Stage Sign offs with Paperwork to back them up.

Only then will Building control be even remote achievable in this country.

ok ok .. Rant over