Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Hairy mellon

BryanF wrote: »

Sys explain a bit more on this, please.

is it not just a retention application and submission of an 'as-built' dwg to the LA

There is no mechanism to obtain retrospective compliance

That is why the self-builder situation is so grave: if persons follow contradictory asvice and mominate themselves as builders they may be deemed mon compliant on completion. No mechanism to regularise this.

mickdw

This is really crazy stuff. What kind or idiots were involved in putting this together.

Hairy mellon

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

There would appear to be numerous inaccuracies and some inconsistencies in the recent local authority public guidance document as follows:

Item 8: just to be correct 40 square meters is a little over 430 sq. feet.

Item 9: The guidance document is suggesting that the Assigned Certifier will assume the role of Design Certifier.

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 item 22 together with 11 and 12 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?

Item 16 may need to be revised. A Commencement Notice is not needed where (a) the works or change of use are exempted development under Planning Acts 1963-1993 (This is a very subtle exemption: not Planning Act 2000, for example) and also where those works or change of use don’t require a fire safety certificate. However, a Commencement Notice is in any event is also needed in the case of a material alteration (excluding a material alteration consisting solely of minor works) of a shop, office or industrial building, even if no fire certificate is needed. The Local Authority Guidance would appear to overlooks this. Material alterations inside a house which isn’t a Protected Structure, does not require planning permission and are exempted development: these do not require a fire certificate, so they don’t need a Commencement Notice.

dathi

sydthebeat wrote: »

You can't. There is no facility to under these regs. If you are the home owner you could find yourself at "the long arm of the law"

what about planning retention? is this not an available route to regularize the property

Hairy mellon

Planning is separate from building control

We are talking about implementation of si9 of 2014

There is no mechanism in si9 to retrospectively regularise compliance

4Sticks

Hairy mellon wrote: »

There is no mechanism in si9 to retrospectively regularise compliance

It is something on the ministers to-do list no doubt. Until he actions it though ( holding breath everyone ) it will leave some people in limbo if they don't follow the SI very carefully.

4Sticks

dathi wrote: »

what about planning retention? is this not an available route to regularize the property

no.

Hairy mellon

4Sticks wrote: »

It is something on the ministers to-do list no doubt. Until he actions it though ( holding breath everyone ) it will leave some people in limbo if they don't follow the SI very carefully.

I would not expect any changes to si.9 quickly. If anyone recalls after stardust the fire certificate process was introduced. That also was flawed and professionals at the time highlighted deficiencies and implementation issues. It took 10 years to sort out. The defects already visible in si9 along with implementation issues due to lack of resourcing are a huge concern and are pretty obvious.

Even to get local authorities skilled up could take months. There are inconsistencies and contradictions already in si9 even without the differing interpretations of the cif, minister, department and other stakeholders. Inaccurate guidance from doe to local authorities only compounds the problems associated with implementation.

mickdw

You would have to be off your head imo to get involved in certifying anything under this system. I cannot see how the professional is insurable here.
For example there is much confusion due to poor wordings as to exactly where it applies.
If works were undertaken and assumed exempt from si 9 and was later deemed not to be the case, there is then no known way of rectifying this issue. Professionals head on the block for massive loses / loss of sale etc.

4Sticks

Perhaps the AT is missing out only on drinking from the poisoned chalice ...

Hairy mellon

unfortunately most of the debate has centered amongst professionals regarding liability, wording etc., which are genuine issues of concern for those involved.

unfortunately no one has debated concerns of consumers. At the end of the day all professionals risks center on professional indemnity insurances. For consumers and self-builders, their houses are on the line.

Hairy mellon

For Dublin there are 22 practices listed at the moment on the newly established homebond register of certifiers. In some of the offices listed, individuals spoken to had not realised that their practices had been listed, and said that they would not be willing to accept separate appointments as certifiers. Some were unsure they would be undertaking certifier roles. It would be interesting to see how many practices listed would be willing to undertake the roles of certifiers not only on their own projects, but on others as a separate appointment?

With Engineer’s appearing only to recommend appointment as ancillary certifiers (and not design certifiers) and architects at a Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) CPD event recently expressing only limited interest in operating the roles (less than 7% only and primarily on their own projects according to attendees), it would suggest the pool of certifiers willing to certify under SI.9 for other projects would be quite limited. We believe the numbers of building surveyors is quite limited (less than 200 members).

Recently the RIAI repeated its request to the government formally to defer SI.9 as the industry is not ready. Will there be enough certifiers to go around? Surely the only course of action now is deferral?

barhodgins

????

There is actually going to be some discussion on these amendments??

Hairy mellon wrote: »

watch this space news today....

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

....it would suggest the pool of certifiers willing to certify under SI.9 for other projects would be quite limited.

...I would suggest very limited.

I said this was back in this thread. I essentially believe that SI 9, in its current form, will fail, and fail quite quickly, as there will not be a sufficient number of assigned certifiers to take on the role.

There are X no. of registered architects, chartered engineers and surveyors in the country. If all were to take on the role of assigned certifier, there may still not be enough, even at the low output of construction we have at the moment.

AFAIK, the DoECLG did not survey potential assigned certifiers in the process of drafting the regulations? There was just an assumption made that there will be assigned certifiers (and enough of them).

I will take on the role of assigned certifier...but...only for my own projects where I am providing a service, start to finish and where I have control of the project/input into the selection of contractors and sub-contractors.

If SI 9 does not fail, in its current form, there will be a huge bottleneck in the construction industry for the foreseeable future.

* goes off to check Homebond register *

Hairy mellon

i agree with previous poster

perhaps the single biggest problem regarding implementation is the numbers of persons electing to become assigned and design certifiers

if there is no appetite for these roles amongst engineers (rural engineers may elect do do roles however) that leaves only architects and surveyors

anecdotally there does not seem to be an appetite for these new roles amongst the professions and certainly not separate appointments working on someone elses projects.

It would be hard to see anyone being a certifier on a speculative development to be honest, with liability and wording issues as they stand.

shane6977

How about this quote from the DOELCG Guide to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014


14. Who is responsible for compliance with the Building Control Regulations?
The owner of the building, and the builder who carries out
the works is responsible, under law, for compliance with
Building Regulations and Building Control Regulations

Letting the assigned certifier off the hook? I doubt it!

sydthebeat

shane6977 wrote: »

How about this quote from the DOELCG Guide to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014


14. Who is responsible for compliance with the Building Control Regulations?
The owner of the building, and the builder who carries out
the works is responsible, under law, for compliance with
Building Regulations and Building Control Regulations

Letting the assigned certifier off the hook? I doubt it!

again, misinformation and erroneous....

according to E O Cofaigh in The Building Regulations Explained RIAI 1993, persons who can be found liable include

building owners, occupiers, designers and constructors.

and all can be subject to the penalties outlined under section 17 (2) 1990 BC act.

Hairy mellon

sydthebeat wrote: »

again, misinformation and erroneous....

according to E O Cofaigh in The Building Regulations Explained RIAI 1993, persons who can be found liable include and all can be subject to the penalties outlined under section 17 (2) 1990 BC act.

+1

just make sure all the professional indemnity insurances are still active....

4Sticks

I posted this awhile back and apologies to those who do read threads through from the start , but I repeat for the benefit of those who do not

I estimate ( based on seeking info from RIAI / SCSI / IEI ) websites that we will have at max

1200 architects ( based on no of practices x 2 )
153 Building Surveyors
200 Chartered Engineers *

* I have asked before for any one to correct this number , I ask again

Not all of the above will be willing/inclined to service the domestic market as they will be experienced or dedicated only to other non domestic sectors.

We had 3070 one off house starts ( commencement notices lodged ) in 2012 a record low. Assuming lets say half of the potential pool of certifiers were actually interested in the work that would make for about 4 houses each.

As far as I know no record is compiled of house extensions of +40m2 so no way of quantifying that workload.

And certifiers will busy themselves with the non domestic sector too of course as I say and so it appears there is a massive mis match of workload vs manpower.

Hairy mellon

GOOD POST! sorry some more accurate numbers

2012 : 10,500 house completions (forfas report source)

2,500 members of RIAI out of which less than 10% willing to certify= 250

Out of approx 35,000 certified engineers less than 2000 are civil/structural. Currently the recommendation by representative body not too undertake roles so assume 20%= 400 (these need significant upskilling so none available immediately)

less than 180 building surveyors assume 50%= 90

so total of 740 potential certifiers for ireland

straw pole amongst professionals recently suggested 1 in 10 willing to act as independent certifier on someone elses project. 9 out of 10 may operate on own projects only.

so total of 74 for the entire country. Maximum.

Hairy mellon

in the uk they have 4000 local authority and private approved inspectors. Much bigger output etc....

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

GOOD POST! sorry some more accurate numbers

2012 : 10,500 house completions (forfas report source)

2,500 members of RIAI out of which less than 10% willing to certify= 250

Out of approx 35,000 certified engineers less than 2000 are civil/structural. Currently the recommendation by representative body not too undertake roles so assume 20%= 400 (these need significant upskilling so none available immediately)

less than 180 building surveyors assume 50%= 90

so total of 740 potential certifiers for ireland

straw pole amongst professionals recently suggested 1 in 10 willing to act as independent certifier on someone elses project. 9 out of 10 may operate on own projects only.

so total of 74 for the entire country. Maximum.

probably extremely pessimistic, but even if your correct, with your UK figures pro rata we'd need only approx 215.

There are approx 3000 LABCO's in england and wales, and 60ish approved inspectors...... for a population of 66 million.

For our population of 4.6 million in the rep..... pro rata thats 214 assigned certifiers.... and as youve said, output is currently a lot stronger there than here. I think the market will quickly be met with certifiers as "needs must".

That being said, the workload of the assigned certifier here seems to be possibly 3-4 times that of a LABCO in england, plus the fact that the LABCO has statutory power to shut a site down. The assigned certifer here will be told what to do.....

Hairy mellon

agreed

pro-rata based on output in 2012 we need around 300 extra local authority inspectors

workload under si.9 more

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

That being said, the workload of the assigned certifier here seems to be possibly 3-4 times that of a LABCO in england, plus the fact that the LABCO has statutory power to shut a site down. The assigned certifer here will be told what to do.....

Exactly...I was hopining you might point that out...and you did.

With regard to 2,500 members of the RIAI, yes, but a lot of those people are retired members, members who work abroad, memebers who work in government departments, members who work in local authorities, members who work in private practice (as employees), etc. The majority of members do not carry PI (as they do not have to).

So 4 stickes is more correct in listing the 600 (odd) RIAI registered architectural practices...it is from this 'pool' that the assigned certifiers will come from. The vast majority of these practices are one-man-bands.

Hairy mellon

ace survey 2013 approx 600 practices participated

out of these 60% were sole traders with 25+ years experience

60% of work once-off residential

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

There are approx 3000 LABCO's in england and wales, and 60ish approved inspectors...... for a population of 66 million.

For our population of 4.6 million in the rep..... pro rata thats 214 assigned certifiers....

No ! you cannot make this comparison

An LABCO is absolutely respected and feared - with good legislative reasons for that. They are more akin to cops who enforce compliance. One quickly experiences pain for not co operating with them.

A certifier in Ireland has / will have no power only responsibility. S/he will be pushing tomatoes up a hill using a toothpick.

Hairy mellon

agreed.

According to IEI- there are about 24,000 members of which 5,700 chartered but across 11 divisions ( no breakdown) so I don't know how many are civil/ structural.

strongback

Hairy mellon wrote: »

GOOD POST! sorry some more accurate numbers

2012 : 10,500 house completions (forfas report source)

2,500 members of RIAI out of which less than 10% willing to certify= 250

Out of approx 35,000 certified engineers less than 2000 are civil/structural. Currently the recommendation by representative body not too undertake roles so assume 20%= 400 (these need significant upskilling so none available immediately)

less than 180 building surveyors assume 50%= 90

so total of 740 potential certifiers for ireland

straw pole amongst professionals recently suggested 1 in 10 willing to act as independent certifier on someone elses project. 9 out of 10 may operate on own projects only.

so total of 74 for the entire country. Maximum.

The ACEI indicated at a meting a few weeks ago that they are satisfied with the amendments following the changing of the wordings on the certs. From my discussions with engineers they are gearing up for the changes. They are unlikely to turn down work after 1st March.

It should be noted that most engineers will only be signing off ancillary certs. I expect architects to be the main certifiers as the lead consultant. The way I see it the lead consultant/architect is a much risky role under the amendments than say a structural engineer or building services engineer only signing off on their own work.

bryaj

Can someone direct me to where I can find the Code of Practice please - as I am unable to locate on environ.ie

Hairy mellon

Code of Practice for Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/code-of-practice-for-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/