Building Control Regulations Amendment Draft 2012

beyondpassive

uhh! just checked out the membership criteria of RICS, you would have to join CIOB first, I don't want to be a surveyor either!

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2820860&type=member&item=115464815&qid=4b40e87a-684e-46ed-8ccf-41f940e87490&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_2820860

Supertech

sydthebeat wrote: »

i dont consider myself as a surveyor.. why should I?

it makes no sense to me that someone who carries a degree in spatial planning and is a SCIS member should be considered as being more appropriate to comment on the compliance of building regulations than I am.

ON THE BUTTON !

sinnerboy

here

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martin, if previous "draft" amendments are anything to go by there will be NO change in the final draft.... these submission stages are just lip service.

for example, they publish this amendment PRIOR to working out the content of a code of practice of inspection... an absolutely VITAL piece of information needed to assess the workability of the proposal

So if the above is true,

and

RIAI Submission. wrote:

6. The present proposals are uninsurable under Professional Indemnity Insurance. The two underwriters, who together provide Professional Indemnity Insurance for 83% of RIAI registered practices have confirmed that such cover will not be available for the system proposed in the Draft Regulations.

then its game over,

Do you really think that will happen?

Somehow I doubt it, my money is on changes to the ''Draft'' making the new system acceptable, in view of the non availability of Insurance.

sinnerboy

Did you send a submittal to the DOE martin?

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

Did you send a submittal to the DOE martin?

Yes

See post#54

sinnerboy

Great . I do hope we all have our voices heard

Supertech

I wouldn't bank on the 'uninsurable' element of the amendments preventing these regulations going through. The only reason it's uninsurable is because of the current wording on the Certificates. Wordings will be changed to a mutually agreed form, the insurers will sign off and the regulationis will be passed in some form similar to what's there at present.

No6

beyondpassive wrote: »

uhh! just checked out the membership criteria of RICS, you would have to join CIOB first, I don't want to be a surveyor either!

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2820860&type=member&item=115464815&qid=4b40e87a-684e-46ed-8ccf-41f940e87490&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_2820860

You can join CIAT first too!! Then RICS

http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/news_article.aspx?newsID=1505
and I think this is what you need to do next but you'll have to check yourself

Professional Experience route
Eligibility
1. Minimum of a bachelor’s degree (in any subject)
or RICS approved professional body membership.
2. Five years’ post-graduation experience.
Requirements
1. Submissions
• seven competency statements (totalling approximately
3 500 words)
• two case studies (totalling approximately 2 000 words)
• organisation chart
• professional development record.
2. Preliminary assessment of submissions.
3. Final assessment interview.
Enrolment on the APC
You can apply to enrol on this route as soon as you
have gained five years’ experience after graduating.
Time
From enrolment, it will take a minimum of three months
to be ready for final assessment.
If you do not yet have five years’ experience because
you only recently graduated, you may be able to progress
to final assessment earlier if you take an accredited post
graduate degree or the study hours progression route.
Guidance
Visit www.rics.org/experience

sinnerboy

Supertech wrote: »

I wouldn't bank on the 'uninsurable' element of the amendments preventing these regulations going through. The only reason it's uninsurable is because of the current wording on the Certificates. Wordings will be changed to a mutually agreed form, the insurers will sign off and the regulationis will be passed in some form similar to what's there at present.

I don't think anyone wants to prevent a change to the regulations. So what you say is axiomatic. The wording has to be altered to ensure the regulations are passed.

sydthebeat

anyone receive a receipt for their submission??

edit: and typically as i post this... i receive a receipt :P

RKQ

Yes I received two, one on 24th & one on the 25th.
Lets hope they were all received by "open ears"

No6

Yes I got one too!!

Supertech

I got mine on Friday.

sinnerboy

[Quote=No6;789

13064]Yes I got one too!![/Quote]
me too

martinn123

I didn't just get a reciept, but a thank you note as well, From France.:cool:

The Department would like to thank you for participating in this public consultation process.
Yours sincerely,
Paris Beausang
Higher Executive Officer
Building Standards

DOCARCH

If they can't even spell the names of their own staff, what hope have we?

sinnerboy

martinn123

Who is this guy, sinnerboy?
and why does he keep sending me submissions?

BryanF

tough shh.. Paris

cheekybarry

I am a Chartered Building Surveyor - have any of you guys thinking of simply "joining" the SCSI as a building surveyor actually looked at the process involved in obtaining qualification and chartered status as a building surveyor?

Qualification as an Architectural Technician does not allow automatic membership. There is an APC process which takes a couple of years post receiving an accepted qualification in surveying.

sydthebeat

hi cheekybarry.

i dont think anyone was purporting "automatic membership" just by having a qualification in Architectural Technology.
The process to MCIAT chartered status are just as onerous as RICS, and a qualification as an AT doesnt entitle you to automatic CIAT status either.

Its just a pity that AT's have been ignored by this amendment... but i always suspected that was the whole point of the BCA 2007 anyway. Its just an act designed to restrict building professional services to a select lobby group.

Im stil not convinced RICS members would have the full range of skills required to certify under these proposed regulations. Nor do i see any evidence in the professional requirements along the APC route... under these amendments anyone from an auctioneer to a mining manager can be considered suitable to certify building. 'Building control' is only one of twenty one possible routes to RICS chartered status. Whereas building control and regulatory design is the core competency of an architectural technician.

muffler

Chris Arch I have unapproved your last 2 posts until such time as I talk to the other mods here and if necessary the community manager in relation the content of 1 post in particular.

I am asking you to voluntarily refrain from mentioning the RIAI in any further posts until such time as we get in touch with you again on this matter. You are of course free to post/comment on any other topic here.

Chris Arch

muffler wrote: »

Chris Arch I have unapproved your last 2 posts until such time as I talk to the other mods here and if necessary the community manager in relation the content of 1 post in particular.

I am asking you to voluntarily refrain from mentioning the RIAI in any further posts until such time as we get in touch with you again on this matter. You are of course free to post/comment on any other topic here.

Ok... I will be listening some music while waiting for the outcome....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjpvpQ9c8IE

muffler

Personally I find this very relaxing particularly as parts of it are slightly topical at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOxuF_YDl_Q

Chris Arch

Yes of course... Sorry I thought we were talking seriously...

RKQ

If you are serious about standing up for yourself, then write to every T.D in the Dail outlining how these regulations will personally affect you.

Will these regulation consign those self employed to social welfare?
Is this the final nail?
What would Farmers do if their own Government ended their employment, preventing them giving a service / or performing a task.

Meet you local TD's in person, this week (It'll be too late next month)

muffler

As I have asked one member not to post anything in relation the RIAI I dont think it would be fair to allow any further debate on the topic until we get a couple of issues resolved. So I am locking this thread for the time being.

muffler

Thread opened again.

sydthebeat

http://www.i-b-c-i.ie/docs/conferences/2008/Building%20Control%20An%20Architects%20View%20-%20John%20Graby.pdf

Heres a very interesting powerpoint pdf document which is available on the IBCI (Irish Building Control Institute) website. Its a presentation apparently made by RIAI to IBCI.

It includes statements such as:

it is unlikely that the level of resources necessary for a full scale approval system covering the design and construction of every building, and involving multi stage inspections, are or would be available.

The reality is that a person with no knowledge or interest in the Regulations, who wishes to evade the system can do so, with allthe potential consequences for building standards, safety, and consumer protection. When this is combined with a person prepared to issue an Opinion on Compliance for such buildings, then the limitations of the present system are obvious.

Delivering a system which provides for the proper enforcementof the Building Regulations requires moving to a system of mandatory self certification, based on a strengthened of theOpinions on Compliance system, as proposed in thissubmission.

it reads to me that when an external inspection scheme was ruled out, then it was a case of "baton down the hatches" for the RIAI, IEI and SCSI and they have called for strenuous "registration" legislation instead.

The National Consumer Agency put forward two options back in 2008:
either a completely independent 100% inspection scheme or
a fully true self certification system

wherein every contractor and sub-contractor would provide certificates that their work was completed in conformance with current regulations, and providing the basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for every new dwelling.

Unless the enacted legislation contains measures to force every contractor and sub contractor to self certify, and of course hold relevant insurance, then it will be a continuation of the current "what language can i use to expose myself in the least" type certs we are accustomed to.