Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

some have more protesting left in them

The Irish Association of Self Builders of Ireland (IASOB) are currently campaigning against the introduction of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014). They have contacted local TDs nationwide to express the strongly held views of their members. Self-builders currently build over 60% of all homes completed in the state and are one of the largest consumer groups negatively affected by the introduction of SI.9 in March. Below is a letter sent recently by the IASOB to Minister Phil Hogan TD. It has been circulated as part of their public campaign to have SI.9 deferred and amended.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

some have more protesting left in them

I've see the figure that 60% of homes are constructed by self builders. That surprised me.

Do self build houses extend to beyond one off houses built by owner occupiers?

As to the issue is it not possible for a self builder to set themselves up as a contractor?

For what its worth from my experience self builds can get built off a planning drawing by a lay person who has little knowledge of the building regs or why some aspects of minimum standards should be achieved to produce a good house.

Lots of people fancy themselves as a builder but how many of these jobs are poorly organised and run well beyond the time they should take to build. There is also the issue of coordinating the trades who can take a standoffish approach when there is a problem at an interface etc.

For me, and it would just be my way of doing things not the only way, I would hire a contractor. I would find working and doing a self build just too stressful but that's just me based on my experience.


I don't have an issue with self builds happening but I think there construction should be better regulated. It's not something I like to say but there certainly have been individuals who signed off on sub-standard self-builds. The idea behind "substantial compliance" got abused.

4Sticks

Indeed so. The gap between how things should be and how they are opens up. All self builders should only do things correctly and ceriifiers should not sign off unless they do.

Hogans New controls wont alter this.

strongback

archtech wrote: »

An important thing for any certifier will be the paper trail and having enough evidence to demonstrate that the building was designed in compliance and that the relevant information was provided to a building contractor in a meaningful way to allow the building be built. And then to maintain a record that what was supposed to be done was done.

IMO from a design perspective a certifier is looking at having to prepare (either by themselves or an ancillary certifier) a report/statement with supporting calculations/drawings etc for every element ( from drainage falls to u-values to required areas for roof ventilation and everything in between)of the building relating to demonstrating compliance. It will no longer be safe to make assumptions or use rules of thumb. This level of information will really impact of the domestic situation, whereby for so long, a good builder, with a good set of GA drawings and a spec was more than sufficient.

I missed this post earlier. I have to say I think the more information that is produced for a job the better. When builders are left with sketchy drawings they have to make decisions sometimes not being fully informed about why certain things need to be done. Most of the details will be standard details and a lot of these already appear on a decent set of drawings.

I hope the days of builders working on houses off planning level drawings is over.

Can't AT's and technicians out on their own do the work and hire in a register certifier? It's not ideal but it keeps things going. (People might be surprised about how many of the established older "architects" have to this ). In the meantime AT's and technicians can then gather themselves under one umbrella either within the RIAI or outside it and build up a power base from which to lobby the government/DOE.

Architectural Technologists in particular need to work hard to make it understood what they do and the value they bring particularly in the area of regulation compliance. Is there a way to become a chartered technologist?

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Is there a way to become a chartered technologist?

Yes and no. One can become chartered by virtue of becoming a member of and meeting particular requirements of CIAT. . But that has no meaning in the context of the BCA 20007 ( Registration of titles part )

newbie2013

Will these changes effect selling a house that was built prior to these changes

BryanF

newbie2013 wrote: »

Will these changes effect selling a house that was built prior to these changes

No

4Sticks

Question No. 124

Chun an Aire Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil:
To the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government:

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 544 of 28 January 2014, if persons who self-build their homes will be required to take on full responsibility for ensuring that the properties concerned are in compliance with the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations (SI No 9 of 2014).

Thomas P. Broughan.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 5th February, 2014.

Ref No: 5852/14

REPLY

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Mr. P. Hogan)

The Building Control Act 1990 places a legal obligation on owners, designers and builders to ensure that their building complies with the relevant requirements of the building regulations. These obligations apply to all sectors of the housing and construction market, including the self-build sector.

Local building control authorities have powers to inspect and enforce compliance and where concerns exist in relation to a particular building, the authority may serve an enforcement notice on both the owner and the builder. In a self-build situation the owner and the builder will be one and the same.

The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations do not change or vary the legal position set out in the Act of 1990. It will, however, greatly strengthen the arrangements currently in place for the control of building activity by requiring greater accountability in relation to compliance with Building Regulations in the form of statutory certification of design and construction, lodgement of compliance documentation, mandatory inspections during construction and validation and registration of certificates.

In practice, even in a self-build situation, the owner-builder may contract out certain construction tasks. Under the new Regulations the owner-builder will also be required to engage competent registered professionals to undertake the design and to perform the role of the Assigned Certifier who will prepare an inspection plan, ensure this plan is implemented by himself and others and, in conjunction with the self-builder, sign the Certificate of Compliance on Completion. The resolution of problems arising between the owner-builder and any of the parties engaged by them as Designer, Contractor or Assigned Certifier is a matter between the owner, the relevant parties and their insurers, subject to the terms of any contracts in place. Where contractual issues cannot be resolved through dialogue and negotiation they can be enforced by civil action through the courts.

I have emphasized certain texts above


With respect to the implications for many who post here with queries ( self builders ) we will all have to see how this pans out and wait for several years of legal actions and their resolutions to really see what this means.

To me and with my crystal ball shining , it seems that the self builder direct labour who "signs as" builder under the new control regulations , becomes as the minister freshly terms it above an owner-builder. See whats happened here

The Building Control Act 1990 places a legal obligation on owners, designers and builders

The self builder merges into 2 of the 3 parties principally burdened the building control laws. One sometimes sees posts from self build direct labour along the lines of and I paraphrase "my plumber/tiler/sparks has failed me in some way during the works - aren't they supposed to build to regs / do things right" . As "owner-builder" I believe you will be you will be held in law to account for the works of others by signing documents declaring both your competence and preparedness for you to do what is required to make the works comply.

I expect the vast majority of would be self builders will simply conclude so be it - needs must. I don't have the funds to house myself any other way and so roll that dice.

which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

Which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

...and will certifiers take the risk? Not sure...without a hefty fee!

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

I have emphasized certain texts above


With respect to the implications for many who post here with queries ( self builders ) we will all have to see how this pans out and wait for several years of legal actions and their resolutions to really see what this means.

To me and with my crystal ball shining , it seems that the self builder direct labour who "signs as" builder under the new control regulations , becomes as the minister freshly terms it above an owner-builder. See whats happened here



The self builder merges into 2 of the 3 parties principally burdened the building control laws. One sometimes sees posts from self build direct labour along the lines of and I paraphrase "my plumber/tiler/sparks has failed me in some way during the works - aren't they supposed to build to regs / do things right" . As "owner-builder" I believe you will be you will be held in law to account for the works of others by signing documents declaring both your competence and preparedness for you to do what is required to make the works comply.

I expect the vast majority of would be self builders will simply conclude so be it - needs must. I don't have the funds to house myself any other way and so roll that dice.

which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

I would say that the fact Hogan has said that the Act includes self builds strengthens the self builder in any legal case. Hogan has legitimized self building in terms of the new Act in other words.

I then don't see what more a self builder can do if he follows the guidelines set out in Hogan's response and employs a competent designer to produce drawing in line with the Regs and then uses an assigned certifier. To me that is a comprehensive approach and in any law case were a self builder does this he will be in a strong position.

Up to now the bank generally required at least 4 sign offs by an architect or engineer to release stage payments during self builds. The assigned certifier is not much different although checking has become more formalized.

In reality from my experience self builds up to now have been carried out at the self builders risk. If they make a mistake or even hire rogue tradesmen/builders who rip them off they have little recourse outside going to court.

Are there any situations were the council have stepped into a self build project and bailed the self builder out due to bad drawings or rogue builders? It can't have happened too many times.

My read of things is that Hogan did not make changes to the legislation to bring self builders into line. He is far more concerned with housing estates, apartment blocks, pyrite and fire proofing. It is the big projects that are costing the state millions due to previous negligence and bad luck. Designers, builders and Building Control were overwhelmed by the boom and standards on some projects slipped, a lot of people are now feeling the effects of that.


The part of the Hogan statement I really don't like is this:

The resolution of problems arising between the owner-builder and any of the parties engaged by them as Designer, Contractor or Assigned Certifier is a matter between the owner, the relevant parties and their insurers, subject to the terms of any contracts in place. Where contractual issues cannot be resolved through dialogue and negotiation they can be enforced by civil action through the courts.

Removing building control's legal responsibility undermines some of the better aspects of the new legislation. It now really is complete self-regulation and that is open to more abuse than the original 1990 Act in a legal sense. What Hogan and the DOE have done will help the self regulation process but I doubt it will stop another Priory Hall or pyrite estate. In the future obviously it will be at the discretion of the State whether or not they step in to help innocent home owners should they purchase a faulty new home.

mikeymouse

Ok,
I've read through most of this thread, but I would like some clarification.
( I know you will say it was covered in the first few posts)
I plan on selfbuilding an extension; 30 sq mtrs (garage and bedroom.)
single storey
I will employ an engineer.
In terms I can understand please,
What involvement will the county council building control have post Mar.1st?
Thanks

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I would say that the fact Hogan has said that the Act includes self builds strengthens the self builder in any legal case. Hogan has legitimized self building in terms of the new Act in other words.

It clearly defines the self builders responsibilities in a way that - based on some posts you read here - many have never appreciated. In other words one sometimes reads posts which seek or expect something like

the council have stepped into a self build project and bailed the self builder out due to bad drawings or rogue builders

Can you expand on why you see the self builder strengthened ?

4Sticks

mikeymouse wrote: »

Ok,
I've read through most of this thread, but I would like some clarification.
( I know you will say it was covered in the first few posts)
I plan on selfbuilding an extension; 30 sq mtrs (garage and bedroom.)
single storey
I will employ an engineer.
In terms I can understand please,
What involvement will the county council building control have post Mar.1st?
Thanks

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Up to now the bank generally required at least 4 sign offs by an architect or engineer to release stage payments during self builds. The assigned certifier is not much different although checking has become more formalized.

Have you known banks place stage payment documentation on public record ?

mikeymouse

4Sticks wrote: »

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

Thanks 4sticks,
I had read sinnerboy and bullseye from a year back ,but was confused.

4Sticks

mikeymouse wrote: »

Thanks 4sticks,
I had read sinnerboy and bullseye from a year back ,but was confused.

sinnerboy repents

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

It clearly defines the self builders responsibilities in a way that - based on some posts you read here - many have never appreciated. In other words one sometimes reads posts which seek or expect something like



Can you expand on why you see the self builder strengthened ?

The main point is Hogan has legitimised self building. He has said it is included for in the Act. Some people had felt when the changes were announced that the new rules would make it very difficult if not impossible to self build.

The Act has a set of procedures that when followed should protect the the self builder in any insurance claim or legal dispute. Self building was so unregulated in the past that if things went wrong and there was no contracts in place or few written down agreements it made it easy for insurance companies to dismiss claims and left judges adjudicating on messes with nothing recorded.

Regulations are there to protect people who are trying to do things right and are fair and reasonable in their approach. They should help to weed out rogues in the construction business.

We will have to see what this costs the self builder in terms of getting compliant detailed drawings and having site visits carried out. I'm guessing fees will decrease over time as people become more comfortable with the changes. There is an attitude in Ireland that good design and inspection is a waste of money, a necessary evil. Ireland can be a bit backward sometimes. Good design should save money and maximize the potential of a new house helping the end user build a home they can really enjoy.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Have you known banks place stage payment documentation on public record ?

We already put planning applications on public record. Designers are pretty careful about what they put out in the public domain and the councils/planners respect that.

From reading the new certs there doesn't appear to be any sensitive information that has to be included on the cert.

I would be surprised if any certifier submits a cert stating there are non-compliant issues unless they have exhausted every avenue in trying to resolve the problems. We already know a cert that makes too many exemptions isn't worth the paper it is written on.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

Something crossed my mind reading this but it is probably nothing.

I know the Act has an exemption for extension under 40m2 but I wonder about extensions less than 40m2 that require planning. Could they get dragged in or is it a black and white 40m2 rule?

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The main point is Hogan has legitimised self building. He has said it is included for in the Act. Some people had felt when the changes were announced that the new rules would make it very difficult if not impossible to self build.

They will. Hogan is playing politics here that's all. It won't be his fault self builders will find things so difficult it will be those intransigent professionals.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The Act has a set of procedures that when followed should protect the the self builder

No. The self builder will now become clearly liable as former-owner-but-forevermore-builder together with the designer to all future owners of the house.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Regulations are there to protect people who are trying to do things right and are fair and reasonable in their approach. They should help to weed out rogues in the construction business.

We will have to see what this costs the self builder in terms of getting compliant detailed drawings and having site visits carried out. I'm guessing fees will decrease over time as people become more comfortable with the changes. There is an attitude in Ireland that good design and inspection is a waste of money, a necessary evil. Ireland can be a bit backward sometimes. Good design should save money and maximize the potential of a new house helping the end user build a home they can really enjoy.

Your second point here will tend to undermine your first. Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .....

My opinion - the only thing that will affect a change in culture and raise building standards is a well resourced detached and impartial local authority inspectorate. But we are going in circles now .

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Could they get dragged in or is it a black and white 40m2 rule?

By lenders. Yes ( my opinion only )

archtech

4Sticks wrote: »

Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .... .

To be honest I can see many disputes between certifiers and clients ending up in court on this one. It will be interesting to see if the professional institutes of the chosen 3, will in their standard forms of appointment include for a "get out of jail clause" whereby non compliance with an instruction regarding building regulations will allow the certifier terminate the agreement.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

They will. Hogan is playing politics here that's all. It won't be his fault self builders will find things so difficult it will be those intransigent professionals.

I don't see how self builders will find the procedures difficult to understand.

They set themselves up as a sole trader which will involve a small accountants fee to make a return.

They get planning drawings done, there's also nothing stopping them doing the drawings themselves if they want to take that on.

They can familiarize themselves with the building regs, use guidance documents and the Homebond book to ensure they build in accordance with the regs. They then submit as built drawings.


The only time they explicitly need a professional is to to do inspections and sign off which is the way it has always been with bank.


I can see small builders who have very little knowledge of the regs being concerned with the changes but they shouldn't be. They should go out and educate themselves considering they are spending serious amounts of peoples cash.


The DOE in terms of potential costs to the State are not worried about self-building. A self builder takes on the risks himself, that has always been the way. If somebody takes on a house build and makes a balls of it themselves then nobody is going to bail them out. The government are more interested in consumers who have bought a house or apartment from a developer.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Your second point here will tend to undermine your first. Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .....

My opinion - the only thing that will affect a change in culture and raise building standards is a well resourced detached and impartial local authority inspectorate. But we are going in circles now .

I think we agree that the local authority should be in control of policing building regulations. I have yet to hear an engineer or architect that doesn't believe the same. The "Gang of Three" are worried too especially about having to take on more risk and potentially more insurance claims against them but is that a bad thing? I believe people need to take more responsibility for ensuring things don't go wrong.

strongback

archtech wrote: »

To be honest I can see many disputes between certifiers and clients ending up in court on this one. It will be interesting to see if the professional institutes of the chosen 3, will in their standard forms of appointment include for a "get out of jail clause" whereby non compliance with an instruction regarding building regulations will allow the certifier terminate the agreement.

I see it as more black and white. The building either complies with the regs or it doesn't. If it doesn't comply a cert isn't signed or it is written into the cert that non-compliant work exists.

If there is a dispute that cannot be resolved an independent third party can be brought in to do a review. It's not that difficult to interrupt the regs.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

No. The self builder will now become clearly liable as former-owner-but-forevermore-builder together with the designer to all future owners of the house.

For that to happen collateral warranties would have to be signed. These are never used on houses in my experience. There is a defects liability period with most construction work, generally after 6 years the designer is no longer liable to claims, I think it is much less for builders but I'm not sure what it is exactly.

Speedsie

Hi, I'm about to start renovating an existing 19th century house. The roof needs work amongst other items, but basically the works are renovation, not building. There will be no extension.

I've been told time & time again that the works will need to comply with the new Building Control regulations.

But looking here, it seems it it for:
a) New Builds
b) Extension over 40 sq m

Am I being made adhere to more than I need to (bearing in mind that I'm already having to comply with a protected structure & all that entails).

Thanks!

Speeds

dathi

you are now arguing about "the ministers" opinion .how much weight will "the ministers" opinion hold in a court? if and when there is a legal challenge or dispute over this legislation . it will be solely based on the wording in si 9 of 2014 if it not in there it not going to happen