Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

newbie2013

4Sticks wrote: »

Yes. And one could renovate much larger existing areas too. Another flaw in the regs imo . There is plenty of scope to undertake significant works here which ought to be included in the scope of the regulations.

??

sydthebeat

newbie2013 wrote: »

??

You could completely gut a huge dwelling and renovate from ground up and not be subject to these regulations. it could be a project and budget well in advance of a standard new build.

i think thats what 4sticks may have been referring to.

kkelliher

Chisler2 wrote: »

If any other occupational group - for example the farmers, the teachers - was being hobbled and hamstrung by proposed new government legislation there would be organised, high-profile protest. Where is the opposition? Surely the building industry has the benefit of closely-interwoven networks of trades?

I can only speak for the scsi which is generally the most useless representative body around.

cosatron

kkelliher wrote: »

I can only speak for the scsi which is generally the most useless representative body around.

Are the SCSI any good at all. Thinking off joining with an APC in building control. I'm an AT so I was hoping to use the SCSI as my route to certifying

kkelliher

cosatron wrote: »

Are the SCSI any good at all. Thinking off joining with an APC in building control. I'm an AT so I was hoping to use the SCSI as my route to certifying

Depends what you want it for, as a means to an end then why not but they do little or nothing in promotion of or representation of the profession

sydthebeat

7 weeks to go and:


(a) final wording of the actual amendment not finalised yet
(b) final wording of certificates not agreed
(c) no register of builders set up by CIF yet
(d) final wording of code of practise not finalised
(e) no Local Authority has a system set up yet to receive digital document submission


what a disaster of a piece of legislation

fclauson

sydthebeat

Its already affecting real time projects... and the closer we get to march the more projects will be on hold.

No one knows how to price for these jobs, no one knows how to even word a tender package properly.

4Sticks

Anyone who maybe so kind as to post here if PI cover has been made available at reasonable cost to cover the increased risks to certifiers ?

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Anyone who maybe so kind as to post here if PI cover has been made available at reasonable cost to cover the increased risks to certifiers ?

while not my own personal experience, a friend who is an engineer contacted his broker to ask if there will be an increase in premiums as a result of the regs only to be told the underwriters "are still looking at it and no desision has been made yet"......

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

No one knows how to price for these jobs, no one knows how to even word a tender package properly.

Great minds think alike! I was intending to post/ressurect this thread today with the same sentiments.

It's a fupping disaster! Not a word on this, from any source (RIAI included) since before Christmas.

Starting to look like a fool tellling potential clients that you will have to appoint an assigned certifier...but...that service (and potential associated cost) cannot be properly established at this point.

Logic would say that implementation has to (must) be postponed.

archtech

DOCARCH wrote: »

Logic would say that implementation has to (must) be postponed.

The Minister's Private Secretary advised as late as last week that the Department are still on course to implement the regulations on March 1st.

DOCARCH

archtech wrote: »

The Minister's Private Secretary advised as late as last week that the Department are still on course to implement the regulations on March 1st.

I suppose...you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...:rolleyes:

con1982

DOCARCH wrote: »

I suppose...you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...:rolleyes:

Are Designers the eggs in your metaphor?

DOCARCH

con1982 wrote: »

Are Designers the eggs in your metaphor?

Yip...:)

Gumbo

DOCARCH wrote: »

Logic would say that implementation has to (must) be postponed.

archtech wrote: »

The Minister's Private Secretary advised as late as last week that the Department are still on course to implement the regulations on March 1st.

i have been told by inner circles, that the amendment is also still on course to be implemented on March 1st.

sydthebeat

kceire wrote: »

i have been told by inner circles, that the amendment is also still on course to be implemented on March 1st.

it will be implemented alright, its just the industry wont be in a position to amalgamate to it straight away ...

another case of "its alright jack"

the COP and wording of certs and the actual amendment should have been set in stone at least 6 months ago.

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

it will be implemented alright, its just the industry wont be in a position to amalgamate to it straight away ...

another case of "its alright jack"

the COP and wording of certs and the actual amendment should have been set in stone at least 6 months ago.

+1

I imagine it will be a month of no commencement notice lodgements while people sit and see how it plays, what's been accepted etc

What I have heard is that there will be some allowance made for people lodging online, and been given a change to rectify problems before they invalidate the CN applications.

sydthebeat

They can invalidate the CN?

Lol that will make for great arguments over the counter.
The building control section in my la wouldn't know a building reg from a title block

jkell061

it was mentioned earlier that the certificate of compliance (design) does not necessarily need to be the assigned certifier. I don't think it states that it MUST be. what is the case here?

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

They can invalidate the CN?

Lol that will make for great arguments over the counter.
The building control section in my la wouldn't know a building reg from a title block

Yes, and its quite common believe it or not.
We mainly invalidate them for starting works early.

Mistakes etc can be rectified by phone and email, ie the admin team will call you and say "you put the wrong date in" or "wrong number" etc.

They will then accept an email confirming the correct details and edit the form in house.

But if we inspect a site and it has already substainially commenced, then theres nothing that can be done - invalidation.

Supertech

But if we inspect a site and it has already substainially commenced, then theres nothing that can be done - invalidation.

How is that rectified in terms of the Commencement Notice ? Are works suspended pending lodgement of a revised notice and then recommenced on the appropriate date ?

sydthebeat

jkell061 wrote: »

it was mentioned earlier that the certificate of compliance (design) does not necessarily need to be the assigned certifier. I don't think it states that it MUST be. what is the case here?

no they can be different, once registered.

Gumbo

Supertech wrote: »

How is that rectified in terms of the Commencement Notice ? Are works suspended pending lodgement of a revised notice and then recommenced on the appropriate date ?

It cannot be rectified.
You cannot lodge a commencement notice for works which have already commenced.

Basically, its between the developer and his/her architect to sort out the paperwork between themselves to make sure going forward everything is ok.

Like its a minor admin breach and generally its small domestic stuff that it occurs on so in most cases it wont hold up a sale or anything, but i imagine it could cause complications for a developer building a sn estate or similar and having no validated commencement notice.

sydthebeat

kceire wrote: »

Yes, and its quite common believe it or not.
We mainly invalidate them for starting works early.

Mistakes etc can be rectified by phone and email, ie the admin team will call you and say "you put the wrong date in" or "wrong number" etc.

They will then accept an email confirming the correct details and edit the form in house.

But if we inspect a site and it has already substainially commenced, then theres nothing that can be done - invalidation.

must be different rules for different LAs

ive never had a CN invlidated
ive sent in CNs for builds that were finished months earlier.

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive never had a CN invlidated

I have

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

must be different rules for different LAs

ive never had a CN invlidated
ive sent in CNs for builds that were finished months earlier.

You,ve just never got caught

4Sticks wrote: »

I have

Dublin?

4Sticks

DLRCC

jkell061

sydthebeat wrote: »

no they can be different, once registered.

thanks syd,

and this may be a stupid question, but say for a house, and the certificate of completion is made invalid for some reason due to the building not conforming to regs, what then happens the house? it then must sit idle until further works are done until it complies?

sydthebeat

jkell061 wrote: »

thanks syd,

and this may be a stupid question, but say for a house, and the certificate of completion is made invalid for some reason due to the building not conforming to regs, what then happens the house? it then must sit idle until further works are done until it complies?

a certificate of completion (ie final cert of compliance) shouldnt be signed if theres a building reg issue.

who is going to say its invalid?

If its signed then who is going to notice any issue if and until that building is sold?? even then if a cert exists, will the building be checked for compliance?

remember these regulation allow for NO local authority checks.