The Value of Certification

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

you can build 25 sq m (internal floor area) without permission

so thats 5m x 5m, or whatever dimensions which equates to 25 sq m.

most importantly... the external finishes MUST be similar or the same as the dwelling it serves.... a flat roof is allowed up to a max of 3 m high.

If its a pitched roof, then theres a max 4 m restriction, and the roof finish must be "similar" to the roof of the house. there are situations where it has been accepted that a profiled sheeting finish has been accepted as long as the profile matches the roof finish.

If the house is brick, the walls of the shed must look like brick, if rendered, then they must look rendered.

For clarity, do the reg's regarding the external finish, apply ONLY where the garage is to the side of the house, i.e visible from the roadway.

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a house, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the house.

So if the OP is building ''in his back garden'' and not to the side of the house does this reg. apply
Thanks

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

So if the OP is building ''in his back garden'' and not to the side of the house does this reg. apply
Thanks

If that's the case, then this

The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a house, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the house.

part of the reg does not apply, as you stated.

martinn123

^^^

Thank you for that, is there a clear definition of '' to the side of the house'' as in, level/in line with the front of house, stepped back a few meters/ at the side, etc. Or is it visibility from the road.
Or is it as it says on the tin, simply to the side.

rayjdav

From my own experience of different councils over the years, they can have their own interpretation of this so best to contact your own exact council a seek a declaration of same.

martinn123

rayjdav wrote: »

From my own experience of different councils over the years, they can have their own interpretation of this so best to contact your own exact council a seek a declaration of same.

Yes, I see this advice a lot here, and thanks, but I am interested in the opinions of those who post, thats what the forum is for I hope.

I have attached a rough sketch, not to scale, of where I propose to put a garage.
So, is it to the Front, obviously no
Is it to the rear, maybe, its more to the side,
Is it defined as to the side, well it could be,
Is it visible from the road, definately not because of the site layout, and the position of the entrance.

So my question, with thanks to raydjav, is would you issue me with a Cert. of Exemption, assuming all the other conditions met, size etc. if the render did not match the house.
The Front elevation of the house is brick, the sides are Dry Dash, I am looking at a PVC Clad, steel structure for the garage.
Apologies if I have highjacked the OP's thread.

sydthebeat

Its my experience that councils view "to the side" as being anything visible when viewed from the front. So they disregard whether its behind the rear building line or not. Thats the view i hold as well, for both garages and extensions.

rayjdav

martinn123 wrote: »

Yes, I see this advice a lot here, and thanks, but I am interested in the opinions of those who post, thats what the forum is for I hope.

Martin123,
In fairness you had actually requested a DEFINITION, and now an opinion. With all due respect they are 2 completely different things.;) I suggested that you approach your own council for THEIR definition.

From your sketch I would personally class that as to the rear, i.e. equal to or behind the rear building line of the property, regardless if seen from the front, on the assumption that all associated conditions are adhered to, it would exempt development imo.

sydthebeat

rayjdav wrote: »

From your sketch I would personally class that as to the rear, i.e. equal to or behind the rear building line of the property, regardless if seen from the front, on the assumption that all associated conditions are adhered to, it would exempt development imo.

and im my opinion that would be 'to the side' and therefore would require external finishes to match existing.

martinn123

Martin123,
In fairness you had actually requested a DEFINITION, and now an opinion. With all due respect they are 2 completely different things.;)
From your sketch I would personally class that as to the rear, i.e. equal to or behind the rear building line of the property, regardless if seen from the front, on the assumption that all associated conditions are adhered to, it would exempt development imo.

Yes you are correct, hope I havent caused offence.
My reason for seeking a Definition, was to explore whether as its laid down in Statute, if a definition existed.
In the absence of such, we are now left with Opinions, fair enough, and we see

raydjav wrote:

From your sketch I would personally class that as to the rear, i.e. equal to or behind the rear building line of the property, regardless if seen from the front, on the assumption that all associated conditions are adhered to, it would exempt development imo.

and

sydthebeat wrote:

and im my opinion that would be 'to the side' and therefore would require external finishes to match existing.

confusing is'nt it.

I thing this illustrates, INMO, what is wrong with the current Certification System, they are merely statments of opinion, and worded as such, and open to contradiction.

raydjav wrote:

I suggested that you approach your own council for THEIR definition.

Would this be the definitave opinion, and subject to no further contradiction, but they do not issue Certs???

sydthebeat

martinn... everything is based on opinion... even law.. .that's why we have courts.

definitions are challenged on a daily basis in courts of law. that's what they are for.

If you want a definitive decision on YOUR particular situation apply for a section 5 declaration with the council. and if you are not happy with this you can go to an Bord pleanala for a definite definition

But these are for specific situations... its still a matter of opinion whether these definitions can be extruded to apply to other situations... so someone will always have to give an opinion


for example.... an bord pleanala has ruled in a lot of cases that rooflights are considered exempted development as they do not materially affect the form and character of a roof. However, this is not specifically stated in any statute and if you ask a planner they will more often than not tell you that they do require permission. Its also assumed that rooflights to the side and rear are exempt, but not to the front... again another fallacy that exists no where in law.

there are many, many grey areas in most laws.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martinn... everything is based on opinion... even law.. .that's why we have courts.

definitions are challenged on a daily basis in courts of law. that's what they are for.

If you want a definitive decision on YOUR particular situation apply for a section 5 declaration with the council. and if you are not happy with this you can go to an Bord pleanala for a definite definition

But these are for specific situations... its still a matter of opinion whether these definitions can be extruded to apply to other situations... so someone will always have to give an opinion



there are many, many grey areas in most laws.

Yes, agreed, but I was commenting more on the Certification System which has been allowed to develop here, all based on opinions.
For example, if I build and get a Cert from ''raydjav'' based on his opinion, and in a few years sell my house.
Lets say you survey for the purchaser, you may give an opinion that the Garage is not exempt, trouble.

In the States as far as I am aware, the Local Auth Certify all developments, and that Cert is valid, no matter who expresses an opinion, and remains on file for the Title to the Property.
So while there are grey areas in most laws, lets not make work for Lawyers, lets get it right first time and move on.

rayjdav

But Martin,
I was stating that with Section 5 Declaration in hand, from that specific Council, everyone's a**e is covered.:D

If your Council deem it exempt, it does not matter squat what any other council may deem it. No? Or am I missing another totally different question being asked here

Poor Uncle Tom

I took the relevant posts from the previous thread on exempted garage size and brought them here so the issue of certification can be discussed without dragging any thread off topic.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

In the States as far as I am aware, the Local Auth Certify all developments, and that Cert is valid, no matter who expresses an opinion, and remains on file for the Title to the Property.
So while there are grey areas in most laws,

You can always remove the grey area by getting planning permission here also. Just because your structure is the size of an exempted development does not stop you getting planning permission for it anyway, if you think there might be any problem down the road.

rayjdav wrote: »

But Martin,
I was stating that with Section 5 Declaration in hand, from that specific Council, everyone's a**e is covered.:D

If your Council deem it exempt, it does not matter squat what any other council may deem it. No? Or am I missing another totally different question being asked here

Actually I have a tiny problem here.
A Section 5 declaration is just an opinion also, although it is an opinion from a LA, it is still only an opinion. It is possible to get two opinions on similar developments which would be at odds with each other because they are carried out by different people and open to their own interpretation.

A planning permission on the other hand is a stamped and sealed legal document and the decision itself once finally made under managers order is not open to any interpretation. There is no grey area about the actual decision, the conditions under which the permission/refusal is granted or refused is another matter.

If the SI 600 of 2001 didn't exist and planning permission was required for everything there would be no grey areas but there would be a lot of work.....:D

martinn123

Thanks PUT.

My comments on Certification are questioning the fact that they are based on ''Opinion''.

as we know opinions differ, so who carry's the can.
Certs being opinions are worded with clauses such as '' Visual inspection only'' and '' works covered up'', so whats their real worth.
Banks rely on them to release funds, Solicitors accept them, but if its only an opinion is that good enough.


Is it time to change the way, Certification is carried out hereabouts.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Thanks PUT.

My comments on Certification are questioning the fact that they are based on ''Opinion''.

as we know opinions differ, so who carry's the can.
Certs being opinions are worded with clauses such as '' Visual inspection only'' and '' works covered up'', so whats their real worth.
Banks rely on them to release funds, Solicitors accept them, but if its only an opinion is that good enough.


Is it time to change the way, Certification is carried out hereabouts.

With respect you are talking about two different types of certification here.

You start by putting a layout plan up with a garage on it and ask for an interpretation of the wording of part of an SI which will therefore lead to one type of opinion or personal certification (that planning permission is or is not required)

Then you mention

Certs being opinions are worded with clauses such as '' Visual inspection only'' and '' works covered up'', so whats their real worth.

which is directly related to an 'Opinion or Certificate of Compliance' (that a structure is constructed in accordance with planning permission or building regulations)

These are two different types of certification.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Is it time to change the way, Certification is carried out hereabouts.

i dont think you will get anyone, clients and professionals alike, who wont disagree with the notion that we need to change the system as it stands.

however thats a very open ended discussion.

I think martin, that you have a problem with the fact that they are based on an opinion.

i remember years ago we used to write up certificates using the title "certificate" and we were strongly advised by a solicitor who received one of our certs to change the wording to "opinion". His view, and that of the law society, is that it is dangerous to say you are 'certifying' something and then go on to say it is 'substantially in compliance to'.

The problem as i see it is:
1. the lack of a reasonable, viable and visual building control section in ireland.
2. the reglatory schism between the planning and construction stage
3. the acceptance by the law society of 'weak' compliance certs... something they are possible quite happy to allow.

edit:
4. also the fact that building control base their own compliance with building regulations on an inspection basis, and not on a 'regulation compliance' drawing submission. They have a process for determining compliance with Fire regulations on non domestic properties by a 'drawing and audit submission' process... and recently the same for disabled access..... they should have the same for residential projects.

the issues were acknowledged and raised by the Consumer agency as far back as 2008

There are very good building control systems out there which allow for continuous local authority input, all the way from planning to completion and final certification, in neighbouring jurisdictions such as UK.
In these jurisdictions these small planing queries we have on this forum don't arise as they are dealt with specifically by the local authorities during the construction process ie moving a window etc.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You can always remove the grey area by getting planning permission here also. Just because your structure is the size of an exempted development does not stop you getting planning permission for it anyway, if you think there might be any problem down the road.

Yes but then I need a Cert of Compliance with P.P, another opinion open to alternative interpritation

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

Actually I have a tiny problem here.
A Section 5 declaration is just an opinion also, although it is an opinion from a LA, it is still only an opinion. It is possible to get two opinions on similar developments which would be at odds with each other because they are carried out by different people and open to their own interpretation.

A planning permission on the other hand is a stamped and sealed legal document and the decision itself once finally made under managers order is not open to any interpretation. There is no grey area about the actual decision, the conditions under which the permission/refusal is granted or refused is another matter.

If the SI 600 of 2001 didn't exist and planning permission was required for everything there would be no grey areas but there would be a lot of work.....:D

And if Certifyers were obliged to Certify works, there would be even more:eek:

sinnerboy

For the sake of brevity in this post Certification means "Opinion on compliance with Building Regulations" together with "Opinion on compliance with Planning Permission"

The value of Certification ?

Well for reasons thrashed out already one is correct to sceptical. However if the right architect/engineer is appointed properly for all stages of the works then his/her opinion is of tremendous value.

I have written before that in return for my insistance that the building regulations that I dedicate my working life to keeping pace with are actually implemented on site - that I have been assaulted , lost repeat work and lost new work because I was perceived to be too expensive. It all demands time you see that I need to charge for.

So any documents that I have issued together with those issued by fellow posters ( we all know who I mean) here actually represent very good value in that the documents represent that regulation standards were applied and maintained on the build.

Myself I have never accepted a commission limited to inspections for mortage draw down payments only followed by Certification. Typically a client may only begrudgingly make such an appointment because he has no choice - the bank makes him do it. The time and attention I would input ( and many other good guys/girls) and would need to charge for would be considered by such a client as a total waste of money. Ironically , to my mind , there is no perceived value in paying for quality assurance.

Certification issued under such stripped-down circumstances ( again as I have posted before ) serves only as a fig leaf allow funds to flow from lender to borrower and does not - in my opinion - warrant very much to the borrower.

The UK regime is vastly superior to ours but would cost the state money it does not have now in a glut of new state employees ( well LA employees ). anyone want to pay more Household Charge to fund an effective Building control inspectorate ?

And if Certifyers were obliged to Certify works, there would be even more

I believe I did post to you before that any professional in practice who did so in Ireland today would be issuing a truly valueless document. Why ? Because no PI insurer would back it.

Recap .
Certification in its present form in Ireland is demanded at the behest of money lenders. It is qualified and underwritten by another financial institution - the insurance industry. It warrants little to Joe Public who probably desires better enforcement of standards but probably does not wish to fund this.

.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Yes but then I need a Cert of Compliance with P.P, another opinion open to alternative interpritation

This will only be the case if the condition is ambiguous in the first place. I put it to you that if the Planning Officer actually spent the time allocated to each file going through the process and put relevant conditions on each individual permission then there would be no need for any planning permission to be open to alternative interpretation.

The Building Regulations should be certified by the Building Control Authority separately, imo.

martinn123 wrote: »

And if Certifyers were obliged to Certify works, there would be even more:eek:

I find that more than half the battle with 'certification' is actually having the building designed in compliance with the Building Regulations to begin with.
Again, if the powers that be (Planning Officers and Building Control Officers) actually sat down and scrutinised the building details to ensure FULL compliance with the Building Regulations before granting planning permission, final certification would be a breeze for everyone involved.

I've seen the phrase 'measure twice and cut once' written here many times, this would be another apt use of that wiseism.

martinn123

Excellent post,sinnerboy, concise and informative, thank you.

In reply to PUT above I think with the posts being hived off another thread, some of my comments have been mislaid.

I did not post asking if P.P was required for my sketch, but to query a post that stated the external render had to match the house.
I asked was my proposed garage at the side, back etc. of the house and got two different opinions.
then I suggested if I obtained a Cert from one poster stating the garage was Exempt, and in the future another poster with a contrary view acted for the purchaser, I had a problem.

this led me to question the current Certification System, given that its opinion based, would a USA Type system be better where the L.A issues a Cert which stays on the Title irespective of contrary opinions.

my use of phrases '' works covered up'' and ''visual Inspection'' was with regard to all types of Certs, not as PUT suggests to mix them up.

So my theisis is that we have developed a system which does not protect the home owner.
It protects the Banks, Insurance Co's, etc.etc. but if something goes wrong its the home owner who picks up the Bill, or ends up living in a Hotel, while the developer heads to England to become bankrupt, and the Certifyer has a document issued which was designed to cover his and his insurers rear-end.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

I think with the posts being hived off another thread, some of my comments have been mislaid.

No, all of your posts have been moved here and are on this thread, I have double checked, please check yourself by going through your User CP to make sure.

martinn123 wrote: »

I did not post asking if P.P was required for my sketch, but to query a post that stated the external render had to match the house.
I asked was my proposed garage at the side, back etc. of the house and got two different opinions.

My apologies, you did not ask if planning permission was or was not needed, you asked whether your garage would be considered to be to the rear or to the side of the house. In any event your question was in relation to an Opinion on the interpretation of the wording of an SI.

martinn123 wrote: »

then I suggested if I obtained a Cert from one poster stating the garage was Exempt, and in the future another poster with a contrary view acted for the purchaser, I had a problem.

Correct, so I suggested that getting planning permission in the first instance was a means of this not ever being a problem in the future.

martinn123 wrote: »

this led me to question the current Certification System, given that its opinion based, would a USA Type system be better where the L.A issues a Cert which stays on the Title irespective of contrary opinions.

This is where I am saying there are two different types of certification.
1. If the opinion on certification is about the interpretation of the wording of part of an SI it can be overcome by getting planning permission in the first place. That is in fact the very same as what you describe above where the LA issues a document which stays on the title irrespective of contrary opinions.
2. If the opinion on certification is about Planning Permission or Building Regulations then I have outlined in the post above how I think this can be tidied up.

martinn123 wrote: »

my use of phrases '' works covered up'' and ''visual Inspection'' was with regard to all types of Certs, not as PUT suggests to mix them up.

I still maintain that these are two different types of certs., as I think I have outlined above again.

martinn123 wrote: »

So my theisis is that we have developed a system which does not protect the home owner.
It protects the Banks, Insurance Co's, etc.etc. but if something goes wrong its the home owner who picks up the Bill, or ends up living in a Hotel, while the developer heads to England to become bankrupt, and the Certifyer has a document issued which was designed to cover his and his insurers rear-end.

I do understand what you are saying, but I believe you are describing the corrupt element, the small percentage that tarnish the profession for everyone. You are not describing professionals in an industry, you are describing thinly veiled greed, fueled by poor regulation. I believe that the greater part of the industry that remain today are every bit as sickened by what went on as the normal everyday homeowner is. I also don't think it is fair to label those left holding the can the same as the greedy thieves heading to England or their handsomely rewarded 'certifyers'.

sinnerboy

martinn123 wrote: »

So my theisis is that we have developed a system which does not protect the home owner. It protects the Banks, Insurance Co's, etc.etc. but if something goes wrong its the home owner who picks up the Bill, or ends up living in a Hotel, while the developer heads to England to become bankrupt, and the Certifyer has a document issued which was designed to cover his and his insurers rear-end.

And the best strategy to cope - seek out good professional help . It is plentiful available as PUT states. There are many many great professionals who offer a fine service despite the flawed system which is not of their making.