Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

sydthebeat

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

For scared read unwilling to accept radical change that would mean Architects (and Engineers such as myself) have to take more responsibility and be culpable. Current certification of works has nice wording like opinion on compliance which is very vague. With the new bill all inspections and sign off certification will state categorically that something complies and if it is found later to be otherwise there is someone who can be legally pursued.

you're going over old ground here rory..... perhaps give this thread a review

strongback

The RIAI letter states that if additional time is not provided to incorporate the changes before the full implementation of SI9 there will be delays, disputes and additional costs on projects.

It seems to me that the RIAI has decided to pursue the bigger picture with the Government as opposed to writing to Phil Hogan about the finer details such as signing certs on behalf of M&E etc.

Basically reading between the lines it looks to me that the RIAI are telling Richard Bruton that what Phil Hogan is doing is going to effect enterprise and jobs.

RORY O CONNOR

strongback wrote: »

The changes to the wordings of the certs only happened a few weeks ago, there appears a valid argument that some time is needed to incorporate the new wording into standard contract documents..

This is not the fault of the Government. The implementation of new regs have been in the pipeline for sometime and anyone with any sense of professionalism
would have been aware of the implications. The relevant bodies and individuals have had plenty of time to revise and amend contract documents.

Hairy mellon

strongback wrote: »

The RIAI letter states that if additional time is not provided to incorporate the changes before the full implementation of SI9 there will be delays, disputes and additional costs on projects.

It seems to me that the RIAI has decided to pursue the bigger picture with the Government as opposed to writing to Phil Hogan about the finer details such as signing certs on behalf of M&E etc.

Basically reading between the lines it looks to me that the RIAI are telling Richard Bruton that what Phil Hogan is doing is going to effect enterprise and jobs.

I tend to agree with this take on the letter. The riai would appear to be the only stakeholder that has broken from the herd and requested deferral previously with minister hogan.

Revisions to gcc and riai contracts are not the sole remit of one organisation- they are the responsibility of liaison committees with representaives of cif, legal profession and other construction professionals that come to informed consensus agreements on same.

To finalise legislation less than 6 weeks before implementation with these documents unamended is of great concern. Mind you according to official sources over 70% of public sector contracts (2007 version) are in dispute post completion so an ad-hic approach to buildin contracts is not unheard of

One would assume revision of complex contracts that have been well established and refined by industry and case law over the years would be quite a complex process, one that could only be initiated following a final draft of si9 being issued. The required revisions would take months rather than weeks to complete properly.

Some sort of transition period where individuals could elect to assume roles or part assume roles while the new regs are bedded in would seem to be more appropriate and sensible.

Design teams previously had been asked to assume new si9 responsibilities in public sector projects at no extra cost and adhere to the provisions of a code of practice in advance of the cop being released- the one that only now has been released.

This looks like the cart before the horse to he honest.

more concern:

The compelling case for Deferral of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-compelling-case-for-deferral-of-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/

jonniebgood1

Hairy mellon wrote: »

more concern:

The compelling case for Deferral of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-compelling-case-for-deferral-of-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/

Can you give us some background on the blog which you keep linking us to?
The about section lists a whole list of professions and separately a list of unlinked names but the submissions in your links are all signed off by the same user name suggesting they are 1 persons commentary on this issue. So is the linked data the views of 1 person or of a certain sector of the building industry?

Hairy mellon

contributors are all listed on blog: is an independent non-representative blog that invites submissions from anyone concerned with SI.9

there are numerous opinion piece listed- most are architects/ past presidents of RIAI and other concerned professionals.

self-builders also have made submissions afaik, mark stephens architect and others

links can be removed if contravene board rules.

here is the title page:


BRegs Blog | A blog to debate the 2013 Building Control (Amendment) Regulations
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/

The Bregs blog grew out of an increasing frustration by concerned professionals that there was no informed objective debate or commentary on SI.9 (formerly SI.80). Vested interests, the Department and also the stakeholder bodies involved in developing SI.9 seemed to be proposing SI.9 as a solution to consumer failures without an open discussion regarding same. The blog grew out of the concerns of numerous concerned architects, engineers, surveyors as well as consumer groups. Contributors to date include submissions by Graham usher (Priory Hall resident), IPFMA, 7 past presidents of the RIAI, numerous individual professionals and fire engineers. One of the main issues throughout 2013 was the minister's insistence that SI.9 somehow incorporated the over 500 submissions received in the RIA process in 2012. The blog posts note many consumer bodies submissions have been ignored. These include the National Consumer Agency, IPFMA, Pyrite Panel report (government commissioned) among others. This lack of open, objective debate contributed towards the creation of the BLOG as a conduit for information to the public and consumer. The forum deliberately does not represent any one industry grouping: it welcomes submissions from any and all perspectives.

The Bregs Blog was previously the Bregs Forum. Some key contributors have gone on to successfully contest recent RIAI council seats and now work within the RIAI council structure.

jonniebgood1

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Contributors include: .....

Enquiries: bregsforum@gmail.com

I hope I'm not to far off topic querying that but are you one of the people represented by the blog (as you present the links as if you are not)?

The blog is very much against these new regulations which is in contrast to the representative bodies of many of the listed professions as listed

Hairy mellon wrote: »

a wide body of stakeholders including architects, engineers, surveyors, architectural technologists, government agencies, property holders, builders and consumer interest groups.

BryanF

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I hope I'm not to far off topic querying that but are you one of the people represented by the blog (as you present the links as if you are not)?

The blog is very much against these new regulations which is in contrast to the representative bodies of many of the listed professions as listed

Johnny as discussed by PM - end of discussion on this matter.

Hairy mellon

I have been a contributor yes. There are some positives of SI.9 however the cost to the consumer, in my opinion, outweighs the benefits. SI.9 could be fixed, but not in 14 working days. It certainly is premature and I agree with the sentiments that it will not succeed in the purpose for which it was intended- protect the consumer. The blog is only one perspective, and if you read posts you will see not all agree. There is a variety of perspectives on mandatory defects liability insurance for example.

The code of practice really reinforces this view of SI.9 for me personally. It would appear that SI.9 will add only minor consumer protections for a vast cost to the consumer. The speculative house/apartment sector will not really be affected.

I think bregs blog and indeed this thread is invaluable in getting informed open debate going, even at this late stage. I am a firm believer in all opinions should be tested in open debate, to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately there is not much info either on CIF, surveyors or RIAI website on this topic (RIAI is getting better).

SI.9 is not all bad- owner/developers will be required to employ a "competent person" at least in the two new roles on site. However these appointments can be employees of a developer, and the process of supervision on site is not independent- the developer/builder is in full control. Planning, fire cert, dac's along with tenders can still be procured by non-formally qualified persons (another debate) and the criteria for the contractors register are extremely loose. A special purpose vehicle can still be set up by a developer for a project and wound down after completion, limiting individual's liabilities. Any defects post completion will still see consumers seeking redress through the courts with no guarantee of success.

The inappropriate wording will leave a vacuum in the certifier roles: this will quickly be filled by industry players such as homebond in the certifier roles and defects insurance. The consumer will loose out again.

It is a step in the right direction but not far enough imho. We need a simple system of independent local authority inspections, which can be self-funded. A system like this can cater for all types of procurement: self-builds, developer-led speculative developments, normal people who employ full design teams etc. SI.9 is a lost opportunity imho.

There are others who are much more positive and see this as a great new revenue stream (more fees) for the professionals involved. The professional bodies have new registers which will give them more income (CIF voluntary one is €600 on top of normal membership).

I think our citizens deserve better. Just my personal opinion.

edit: homebond register of certifiers has gone live.

again mods if links to other sites are a problem i can edit all these.

jonniebgood1

Hairy mellon wrote: »

SI.9 is not all bad- owner/developers will be required to employ a "competent person" at least in the two new roles on site. However these appointments can be employees of a developer, and the process of supervision on site is not independent- the developer/builder is in full control.

If this circumstance occurs as outlined above the projects eventual owners now have the fall back on the certifiers PI policy, i.e. at least there is some type of guarantee in place.

Hairy mellon wrote: »

There are others who are much more positive and see this as a great new revenue stream (more fees) for the professionals involved. The professional bodies have new registers which will give them more income (CIF voluntary one is €600 on top of normal membership).
.

I believe the CIF reg fee for CIRI is deferred for members of CIF on 1st year. The basis for membership of CIRI has not been discussed in much detail. The main criteria seems to be experience in construction which means the effectiveness of the register is reliant on some form of cut off point. I believe there should have been some sort of nod towards qualifications which do not seem to have been deemed relevant in this case.

The additional cost for role of certifier will fall back eventually on the end user as you identify. It is fair to a certain extent that they pay for the guarantee that was not previously in place as the time spent by certifiers will be on their behalf ultimately.

Hairy mellon

some other reading:

This was one of the 2012 submissions to the Department. You can see a number of concerns still remain in SI.9. The SCSI is a key stakeholder involved in the formation of SI.9

http://www.scsi.ie/news_reports/submissions_files/BuildingRegs


Also Engineer's Ireland : Good synopsis of consultations with Department during formation process. Legal issues with wording noted

also towards end query re voluntary register of builders and implications on self-builders
http://www.engineersirelandcork.ie/downloads/3. Cormac Bradley -New Building Control Regus 2013.pdf

Hairy mellon

self-builders call for action!


People of Ireland, Stand Up for your right
http://www.iaosb.com/people of ireland, stand up for your right.html

mullingar

Hairy mellon wrote: »

self-builders call for action!


People of Ireland, Stand Up for your right
http://www.iaosb.com/people of ireland, stand up for your right.html

Corrected link:
http://www.iaosb.com/people of ireland, stand up for your right.html

Edit:

I actually emailed the ¡<}¿▪● Minister Hogan that link last week attached to a quite negative email and I got a response from his secretary that the minister has acknowledged my email will reply to it....... I will post the reply IF he actually replies

jonniebgood1

mullingar wrote: »

Corrected link:
http://www.iaosb.com/people of ireland, stand up for your right.html

Edit:

The argument made in the attached link is hard to take seriously- it contains hyperbole such as "What this means is that should this amendment proceed as it is, as a self builder you will not be able to participate in the construction of your build if you wish to do so. " Does IAOSB envisage a person engaging a builder not being allowed to direct or instruct their builder? This statement is an exaggeration and perhaps lack of understanding of roles on a construction project. There is no coherent argument being made in the link whilst it ignores the actual aim of the legislation- a better built environment for all.

sydthebeat

Agreed, full of hyperbole and mis information.
The public don't need to understand that though.

Hairy mellon

I think the point being made is that owners can no longer be main contractors on projects, co ordinaring sub contractors and making consequent savings on prelims and attendances etc.

Clients can of course direct professionals and contractors, they will not be avle to occupy the role of builder (ie management contractor) under si9

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The argument made in the attached link is hard to take seriously- it contains hyperbole such as "What this means is that should this amendment proceed as it is, as a self builder you will not be able to participate in the construction of your build if you wish to do so. " Does IAOSB envisage a person engaging a builder not being allowed to direct or instruct their builder? This statement is an exaggeration and perhaps lack of understanding of roles on a construction project. There is no coherent argument being made in the link whilst it ignores the actual aim of the legislation- a better built environment for all.

maryishere

Lets put this in context and see where we are coming from / the existing situation over the past few decades say. I think it fair to say that we in this little country of 4 million or whatever people have made a "balls" in terms of planning, the quality of buildings, ghost estates, Priory hall and lots more places like that, ribbon development, the destruction of scenic areas etc.

Does anyone else think we are trying to reinvent the wheel? Nobody seems to understand the new Irish regs and it seems like very complicated, overlaps, jobs for the bhoys etc
The UK has arguably a far better system: why not just copy them?

BryanF

maryishere wrote: »

Does anyone else think we are trying to reinvent the wheel?.....
The UK has arguably a far better system: why not just copy them?

A conversation that was had about 12 months ago

The rest of the post is not relevant to this discussion

maryishere

BryanF wrote: »

A conversation that was had about 12 months ago

The rest of the post is not relevant to this discussion

This thread was only started last April, so its only 10 months old. I must confess I have not read it all though, not all 50 pages. Sorry if the rest of my point was not relevant, I was just making the point that we have screwed up big time, over the past decade or two alone. Had we adopted or ran the planning process and building regs the same way as in the UK, we could have avoided an awful lot of very poor building. Watching Grand Designs on the TV you see sometimes when the whole building process was once held up for 3 weeks over a visit from the council over there. Seems to work for them, they do not get so many priory halls or ghost estates etc?

mickdw

maryishere wrote: »

This thread was only started last April, so its only 10 months old. I must confess I have not read it all though, not all 50 pages. Sorry if the rest of my point was not relevant, I was just making the point that we have screwed up big time, over the past decade or two alone. Had we adopted or ran the planning process and building regs the same way as in the UK, we could have avoided an awful lot of very poor building. Watching Grand Designs on the TV you see sometimes when the whole building process was once held up for 3 weeks over a visit from the council over there. Seems to work for them, they do not get so many priory halls or ghost estates etc?

The is no doubt, they have a much better system and we should have modelled the new system on that. The problem was that the government wanted to go the route of completely removing themselves from any liability and so they have gone the opposite direction and are placing absolute responsibility on the private sector professionals and while they retain the building control department, there is little point in them being anything other than a document storage facility.

BryanF

Mary, you'll note I didn't disagree with you, I'm just sick of regurgitating the same discussion. This IS signed into law and is coming in in two weeks, so you'd better start emailing those who make the decisions...

Hairy mellon

Good point

A simple system like in the uk with independent local authority inspections (or approved inspectors)

Uk are the most similar to ourselves due to case law system, tgd's etc. their system was mentioned in the world bank "ease of doing business" report as being an exemplar.

We had a similar system pre 1992.

Based on uk comstruction output all we need is around 300 inspectors to achieve 100% inspections nationally. Simple, effective.

maryishere wrote: »

Lets put this in context and see where we are coming from / the existing situation over the past few decades say. I think it fair to say that we in this little country of 4 million or whatever people have made a "balls" in terms of planning, the quality of buildings, ghost estates, Priory hall and lots more places like that, ribbon development, the destruction of scenic areas etc.

Does anyone else think we are trying to reinvent the wheel? Nobody seems to understand the new Irish regs and it seems like very complicated, overlaps, jobs for the bhoys etc
The UK has arguably a far better system: why not just copy them?

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

A simple system like in the uk with independent local authority inspections (or approved inspectors)

Uk are the most similar to ourselves due to case law system, tgd's etc. their system was mentioned in the world bank "ease of doing business" report as being an exemplar.

Yes indeed.

This has been trashed out many times before - a simple and relatively strightforward system (tried and tested in the UK), which might add around E 500 to a build (to pay for inspections) - but, in their wisdom (:mad:) this has all been bypassed by the manderins!

4Sticks

But we have our own Irish law here in this land , not English . In this case most unfortunate agreed but too late now to change that.

It will be interesting to monitor this thread for posters ( architects / engineers/surveyors and self builders ) initial experiences of our new law. We AT's have to stand by and spectate.

Initially at commencement
What level of information is being sought
To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
On what basis do they invalidate

Perhaps more intriguing at completion
What level of information is being sought at this point
To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
On what basis do they invalidate - and crucially stop buildings being used

It will be interesting too to keep and eye on this CSO page . Presently it covers commencement notices lodged up to Nov 2013 but it will be very revealing when the statistics report 3-4 months before and after this point in time. We may have to wait until late 2014 to see the impact.

How will nervous professionals , pricing accordingly , combined with stunned self builders , baulking at additional costs , affect the number of commencement notices lodged ?

4Sticks

maryishere wrote: »

This thread was only started last April, so its only 10 months old.

This thread on the same topic was started April 2012. No one wants to appear rude to you but it's a little frustrating to have latecomers to the debate enter without first having read all that passed before. I don't say that in a mean spirited way.

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

How will nervous professionals , pricing accordingly , combined with stunned self builders , baulking at additional costs , affect the number of commencement notices lodged ?

Joooooooe Dufffffffy!

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

But we have our own Irish law here in this land , not English.

Thanks to our 'colonial' past, our legal systems are essentially the same in terms of civil law, etc. I think that's what Hairy Mellon is getting at, as is pretty much the legal systems in Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand.

Many laws we live under/on our statute books are still inherited British laws (being enacted prior to 1921).

Hairy mellon

The extent of info required at commencement and completion is in si9 and code of practice

What isnt noted is completion procedures for appeals or how one mitigates against undue influence by local authotities. Due to chronic understaffing the potential for serious depays in occupying new buildings exists - under qualified LA staff returning completion documentation. No appeals process to counter incorrect invalidations by local authorities.

Under si9 owners cant occupy buildings until validation of completion documentation by local authorities.

In 2007 we had less than 70 building control inspectors...

4Sticks wrote: »

But we have our own Irish law here in this land , not English . In this case most unfortunate agreed but too late now to change that.

It will be interesting to monitor this thread for posters ( architects / engineers/surveyors and self builders ) initial experiences of our new law. We AT's have to stand by and spectate.

Initially at commencement
What level of information is being sought
To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
On what basis do they invalidate

Perhaps more intriguing at completion
What level of information is being sought at this point
To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
On what basis do they invalidate - and crucially stop buildings being used

It will be interesting too to keep and eye on this CSO page . Presently it covers commencement notices lodged up to Nov 2013 but it will be very revealing when the statistics report 3-4 months before and after this point in time. We may have to wait until late 2014 to see the impact.

How will nervous professionals , pricing accordingly , combined with stunned self builders , baulking at additional costs , affect the number of commencement notices lodged ?

maryishere

DOCARCH wrote: »

Thanks to our 'colonial' past, our legal systems are essentially the same in terms of civil law, etc. I think that's what Hairy Mellon is getting at, as is pretty much the legal systems in Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand.

Many laws we live under/on our statute books are still inherited British laws (being enacted prior to 1921).

True, but yet our planning and building laws are different to the UK and we have made a mess of it , judging by the priory halls and ghost estates and destruction of the countryside etc.

BryanF

maryishere wrote: »

True, but yet our planning and building laws are different to the UK and we have made a mess of it , judging by the priory halls and ghost estates and destruction of the countryside etc.

maryishere, you have been asked nicely, & (now informing you with mod hat on,) leave the priory hall, ghost estates, planning, government, and uk etc, out of this thread. Thank you. We are discussing the BCA regs and their implementation