Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Hairy mellon

The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion. Watch this space...

BryanF

4Sticks wrote: »

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

good question, I for one will be watching this space. but the LA's have gotten through this before, albeit slowly and to the annoyance of those trying to do a days work

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.

anyone i have spoken to is pushing clients to issue commencement notice pre end of feb. look forward to you reporting back on the CSO figures

Hairy mellon

Anecdotally there appears to be a pattern emerging of some la's returning Commencement notices as incalid atm on technicalities

This appears to be happening in at last 3 coco

4Sticks

Hairy mellon wrote: »

The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion.

What do you mean by this - please elaborate.

Hairy mellon

4Sticks wrote: »

What do you mean by this - please elaborate.

Problems due to la understaffing- commencement notices being returned, completion documentation bein invalidated incorrectly...

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

...completion documentation bein invalidated incorrectly...

What completion documentation?

Hairy mellon

DOCARCH wrote: »

What completion documentation?

Completion documentation required under si9 -

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Completion documentation required under si9 -

SI 9 does not start until March 1st 2014. No 'completion' documentation (whatever that might mean) required until after March 1st.

If people are submitting commencement notices now, under SI 9, maybe that's why they are being invalidated? :rolleyes:

strongback

Hairy mellon wrote: »

The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion. Watch this space...

It will be interesting to see the roll out of the new software.

Also as the RIAI have pointed to regarding commencement notices, projects that have planning but are not yet ready to go to construction stage, i.e. submit a commencement notice, will in a lot of cases get delayed. Consultants and builders will be cagey about agreeing fees until they get a handle on what the councils expects.

I wonder if the council or DOE will issue guidances on what level of information should be submitted. The rumours I have heard is that lists of calculations may be acceptable instead of submitting every calculation. I suppose the councils will let consultants know if they are not submitting enough information. My view is to submit as little as possible given the information will be on the public record.

Hairy mellon

3 weeks ago there was considerable confusion between local authorities as to actual implementation date- 1st march or 14th march. this has since been clarified as 1st march

only grey area remaining is commencement notices lodged before 1st but subsequently declared invalid (after 1st march)-

4Sticks

From page 32 of SI 9

Regulation 12 inserts a new Part IIIC to the Principal Regulations providing
for Certificates of Compliance on Completion. A completion certificate must be
sent to the Building Control Authority and included on the statutory register
maintained under Part IV of the Principal Regulations before works or a building
to which these regulations apply can be opened, occupied or used. The
completion certificate must be signed by the Builder and the Assigned Certifier
and must be accompanied by plans and documentation showing how the completed
building complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations (and
clearly indicating any differences to design documentation previously submitted
to the Building Control Authority at commencement or during construction)
and by the Inspection Plan as implemented by the Assigned Certifier.

This is then bit we will have to wait about 12 months or so to see how SI 9 pans out.

To what extent will local authorities police these new regulations in the cases of self builders?

To what extent will self builders be prevented from taking up residence in their newly constructed homes?

Only time will tell.

strongback

Hairy mellon wrote: »

3 weeks ago there was considerable confusion between local authorities as to actual implementation date- 1st march or 14th march. this has since been clarified as 1st march

only grey area remaining is commencement notices lodged before 1st but subsequently declared invalid (after 1st march)-

So work must begin on site prior to the 1st March to avoid SI9 stipulations?

It would be harsh if they invalidated a commencement notice during its 28 day life because it straddles the 1st of March. Wouldn't surprise me if they did this though.

DOCARCH

strongback wrote: »

So work must begin on site prior to the 1st March to avoid SI9 stipulations?.

The commencement notice must be submitted before March 1st.

Hairy mellon

I have seen a summary of the possible costs of SI.9 on the industry. Do the benefits of SI.9 outweigh the costs? The bottom line number for this year is 6,000 construction jobs may be lost for 2014. Based on figures the initial cost of SI.9 could be €600m for 2014 with €480m an recurring annual cost based on record 2012 low levels of construction output. By 2020, in 6 short years, SI.9 may have cost the economy €3bn, or 30,000 jobs.

Hairy mellon

4Sticks wrote: »

From page 32 of SI 9



This is then bit we will have to wait about 12 months or so to see how SI 9 pans out.

To what extent will local authorities police these new regulations in the cases of self builders?

To what extent will self builders be prevented from taking up residence in their newly constructed homes?

Only time will tell.

Its quite likely that there will be inadequate policing by local authorities of self-built homes. Possibly no inspections triggered by self-builders when they nominate themselves as builder under si9. The problems may only appear when completion documentation is invalidated an returned by a local authority. One would assume self-builders will inhabit homes in any event as the prospect of enforcement will be pretty slim (inspections to date have been very poor nationwide). However when a self-builder decides to either re-finance their home or sell on would assusme a validation will be required by solicitors from the local authority for conveyancing purposes.

As there is no provision in SI9 to retrospectively obtain a "builders" certificate on completion this situation could be very difficult.

maryishere

Hairy mellon wrote: »

I have seen a summary of the possible costs of SI.9 on the industry. Do the benefits of SI.9 outweigh the costs? The bottom line number for this year is 6,000 construction jobs may be lost for 2014. Based on figures the initial cost of SI.9 could be €600m for 2014 with €480m an recurring annual cost based on record 2012 low levels of construction output. By 2020, in 6 short years, SI.9 may have cost the economy €3bn, or 30,000 jobs.

Interesting. More expense and complexity, and all leading to the above end results if your figures above are correct. As if things in the economy are not bad enough as they are.

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Its quite likely that there will be inadequate policing by local authorities of self-built homes. Possibly no inspections triggered by self-builders when they nominate themselves as builder under si9. The problems may only appear when completion documentation is invalidated an returned by a local authority. One would assume self-builders will inhabit homes in any event as the prospect of enforcement will be pretty slim (inspections to date have been very poor nationwide). However when a self-builder decides to either re-finance their home or sell on would assusme a validation will be required by solicitors from the local authority for conveyancing purposes.

As there is no provision in SI9 to retrospectively obtain a "builders" certificate on completion this situation could be very difficult.

+1. There seems to be a lot of assumptions and uncertainty and I can see a lot of court cases and legal wrangles between all the numerous parties over the above in years and decades to come. No wonder there are no planning permission notices ( apart from retention of planning ) in a local paper I saw during the week, when even this time a few years ago there was some.

Hairy mellon

I agree with previous poster

The "perfect storm" of vague wording in si9 and codemof practice, differing interpretations by minister and department on same, combined with inderskilled and inadequately resourced local authorities. Throw in premature introduction of legislationmless than 4 weeks after code of practice and its a real recipe for disaster. Legals will have a field day imho.

Hairy mellon

local authority guidance to si9 here:

http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Services/Building_Control/Guide-to-the-Building-Control-Amendment-Regulations-2014.pdf

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

local authority guidance to si9 here:

http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Services/Building_Control/Guide-to-the-Building-Control-Amendment-Regulations-2014.pdf

Perhaps you should rephrase that to "guidance to public from local authority"...

templar01

Been tracking this a good while- won't have our commencement notice in before March ....was going self build ..... Really dunno will this put a stop to our lifelong plans or what :-( ...understand why it's necessary to a certain degree but our budget was pretty reliant on direct labour - hopefully we can make it work but it's looking less and less likely - a decision either way by us could mean a life of regret <<<glass has slowly drained itself and were way below half Empty :-)

Hairy mellon

a few observations on "guidance to public from local authority" document

-For item 8 just to be correct 40 square meters is a little over 430 sq. feet.
-The role of Design Certifier would appear to be removed from new process. The guidance document is suggesting that the Assigned Certifier will assume the role of Design Certifier (see item 9).
-Regarding Self-builders items 11 and 12 would seem to be in conflict. The guide does not mention a building owner being able to sign the builder’s completion certificate, rather "the builder" must sign this document. Reading items 11, 12 and 22 together it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”: a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9?

Is this the equivalent of a (builder's) visual only inspection certificate of compliance operated by professionals for the past 20 years? The singular weak point in procurement identified in the "build for sale" identified in the formation of SI.9?

We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also...

How is this going to be implemented in a consistent fashion?

strongback

DOCARCH wrote: »

The commencement notice must be submitted before March 1st.

I was aware of that, my question was in response to Hairy Mellon suggesting there may be a grey area with commencement notices that were lodged before the 1st of March becoming invalid on the 1st of March.

This is not something I had heard raised before so I asked the question.

strongback

templar01 wrote: »

Been tracking this a good while- won't have our commencement notice in before March ....was going self build ..... Really dunno will this put a stop to our lifelong plans or what :-( ...understand why it's necessary to a certain degree but our budget was pretty reliant on direct labour - hopefully we can make it work but it's looking less and less likely - a decision either way by us could mean a life of regret <<<glass has slowly drained itself and were way below half Empty :-)

I think because there are so many unknowns about the implementation of SI9 it is rightfully making a lot of people very pessimistic. My personal view is a lot of the issued e.g. self builders etc will get resolved, it will just take time. How much time should be better known a few months down the road.

sydthebeat

My predictions:

1. As with the planning and development act, local authorities will interpret this si differently. Some local authorities will be very hands on in inspection and may see it as an avenue to instruct the builders to get better builds. Some others will be quite happy to sit in an office and act as a filing system.

2. Financial institutions will take the best parts of the si and insist on them for all mortgage releases, even for development that may be exempt under si9.

3. The cif will be happy to take €600 year from building companies and won't be strict in who gets listed. They will fight tooth and nail to have this register expanded to cover all Grant assisted works even if exempt.

4. Technicians will get no Lee way on becoming assigned certifiers. by the time the industry gets back to its feet the "sacred trio" of architects, engineers and building surveyors will firmly be planted as the go to guys. Technicians may be irked enough to formally break from riai but too little too late.

mullingar

Hairy mellon wrote: »

local authority guidance to si9 here:

http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Services/Building_Control/Guide-to-the-Building-Control-Amendment-Regulations-2014.pdf

Thats brilliant in such an Irish way.

11. I am building by direct labour, who do I nominate as the builder?
The Undertaking by a Builder can only be signed by the builder who, preferably is registered with the Construction Industry Federation and can provide a ‘Construction Industry Register Ireland’ (CIRI) number. Further details can be found on www.cif.ie

Preferably? Are they suggesting that its NOT mandatory and a self-builder can technically assign him/herself?

12. I am a building owner. I have designed my own building and intend to build by direct labour. Do I still need an assigned Certifier?
If your development is one of the types listed in Question 8 then, Yes, you must still nominate an Assigned Certifier. Additionally, you must, your self, sign the ‘Undertaking by Builder’ document. In doing so you will undertake the responsibility for compliance with the Building Regulations

Ok, as a self builder I must still nominate an Assigned Certifier and I can sign the Undertaking by Builder document.


Interesting interpretation of the legislation by the Coco.

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

My predictions:

1. As with the planning and development act, local authorities will interpret this si differently. Some local authorities will be very hands on in inspection and may see it as an avenue to instruct the builders to get better builds. Some others will be quite happy to sit in an office and act as a filing system.

2. Financial institutions will take the best parts of the si and insist on them for all mortgage releases, even for development that may be exempt under si9.

3. The cif will be happy to take €600 year from building companies and won't be strict in who gets listed. They will fight tooth and nail to have this register expanded to cover all Grant assisted works even if exempt.

4. Technicians will get no Lee way on becoming assigned certifiers. by the time the industry gets back to its feet the "sacred trio" of architects, engineers and building surveyors will firmly be planted as the go to guys. Technicians may be irked enough to formally break from riai but too little too late.

Good post.

I think though that AT/technicians will have to organize themselves into a stronger voice either as their own entity or within the RIAI. I think it's very bad policy that capable experienced people have had there rights removed under SI9. For inspiration though look at what self builders have been able to do in a short space of time e.g. lobbying to get questions asked in the Dail.

strongback

mullingar wrote: »

Thats brilliant in such an Irish way.



Preferably? Are they suggesting that its NOT mandatory and a self-builder can technically assign him/herself?

The 'preferably' is just there as there is no requirement yet for builders to be registered with the CIF. The 'preferably' will change to 'has to be' in time I suspect.

As pointed out above LouthCoCo have just put up some general guidance for the public. It doesn't supersede SI9.

4Sticks

Hairy mellon wrote: »

a few observations on "guidance to public from local authority" document

-For item 8 just to be correct 40 square meters is a little over 430 sq. feet.
-The role of Design Certifier would appear to be removed from new process. The guidance document is suggesting that the Assigned Certifier will assume the role of Design Certifier (see item 9).
-Regarding Self-builders items 11 and 12 would seem to be in conflict. The guide does not mention a building owner being able to sign the builder’s completion certificate, rather "the builder" must sign this document. Reading items 11, 12 and 22 together it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”: a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9?

They make a dogs dinner of it don't they ? "Designer" and " Certifier" are two separate roles under the SI and the Certificate of Compliance (Design), may or may not in fact be signed by the Assigned Certifier. And there is no excuse for a government dept guideline getting m2/ft2 conversion wrong.

Hairy mellon wrote: »

We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also...

How is this going to be implemented in a consistent fashion?

It would be funny if it didn't actually matter.

4Sticks

Hairy mellon wrote: »

We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also.

The following interpretations as to if a self builder "be the Builder" will count most

1. Your individual local authority . I have seen too what syd notes as different authorities forming different judgements on the same regulations

2. your architect/engineer/surveyor may well interpret a burden ( in terms of the added liabilities for them ) on him or her not to deem you competent. Or may feel that they cannot offer a fee that balances what you feel you can afford vs. the time they feel will be required to "hold your hand " during the build. All novices need a lot of minding in my experience.

3. Your lender may deem you incompetent and not advance funds to you if you intend the direct labour route.

And it won't matter a damn what guidance is issued by whom then.

4Sticks

From the perspective of the would be self-builder-direct-labour clients (and apologies now for entering into loose analogy ) . It is as if now you are being told that when it comes to buying a car you are no longer allowed to buy a 10 year old Skoda. You must only from now on buy a new Mercedes . In the interests of improving the stock of cars on Irish roads , all in the common good you see. That you cannot afford to buy a Merc is not the issue and you know , maybe car ownership is simply "not for you".

And so to a wider question - does it matter if private individual max their limited budgets to house themselves in buildings that are most probably inferior vs the SI 9 method. These people tend to build and remain , they "lie in their own beds" so to speak. Why not let them do so . How will they be housed otherwise ?