Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

BryanF

Hairy mellon wrote: »

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/

edit: i though it was a link to an article

mickdw

BryanF wrote: »

hairy mellon, if your going to post a link, please critically analyse its content, thanks

??

BryanF

mickdw wrote: »

??

thanks Mick, I assumed it was a link to an article

dathi

Amendment of Article 21 of the Principal Regulations
13. The Principal Regulations are amended by substituting for Article 21
the following:
“Register
21. (1) A building control authority shall keep a register and shall enter
in the register particulars of—
(a) any valid application for a dispensation or relaxation, including
the name and address of the applicant, the date of receipt of the
application, and brief details of a building or works forming the
subject of the application,
can this amendment not be used to regularize a non compliant building

4Sticks

That is a provision only for where existing site conditions make it practically impossible to comply with one or other particular requirement of the building regulations. It would be applied for in advance of works. It is not a retrospective "get out of jail free" card.

mickdw

4Sticks wrote: »

That is a provision only for where existing site conditions make it practically impossible to comply with one or other particular requirement of the building regulations. It would be applied for in advance of works. It is not a retrospective "get out of jail free" card.

They will have to formulate a method of regularising properties. It is utterly crazy as it stands.
A guess a sensible approach might be to have a thorough inspection carried out by a building control officer following which they could recommend alterations or issue a retrospective compliance cert. Only a Building Control officer being allowed to sign off on such a cert. Where you would have the situation where a property was being sold without the required certification, this retrospective cert would be required. I think that would work but of course it goes against the government plan to throw all liability onto the private sector.

shane6977

mickdw wrote: »

They will have to formulate a method of regularising properties. It is utterly crazy as it stands.
A guess a sensible approach might be to have a thorough inspection carried out by a building control officer following which they could recommend alterations or issue a retrospective compliance cert. Only a Building Control officer being allowed to sign off on such a cert. Where you would have the situation where a property was being sold without the required certification,this retrospective cert would be required. I think that would work but of course it goes against the government plan to throw all liability onto the private sector.

Not likely that a BCO will ever be required to sign off anything, least of all a regularisation cert. If the dept. ever do legislate for regularisation of properties, it will most likely be pushed onto the three registered professions to inspect and certify. I don't think it's likely that anyone is going to certify an existing property based on a visual inspection. Such an inspection would have to be intensively invasive for a certifier to be willing to sign a cert of compliance.

brucky

Industry will have to step up to the plate, it puts a real focus on the importance of submitting the initial notice. If I am employing a professional this is what I should expect of them.

DOCARCH

brucky wrote: »

Industry will have to step up to the plate, it puts a real focus on the importance of submitting the initial notice. If I am employing a professional this is what I should expect of them.

No question of 'if' anymore!

In essence the client/employer will be submitting the commencement notice from March 1st onwards.

sydthebeat

brucky wrote: »

Industry will have to step up to the plate, it puts a real focus on the importance of submitting the initial notice. If I am employing a professional this is what I should expect of them.

As long as you expect to pay that professional proportionally more for this extra work involved, then alls good.

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

And remember, the pool of professional you can choose from is extremely small.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

Syd, is this just for acting as assigned certifier?

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

Syd, is this just for acting as assigned certifier?

post tender services.

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

As long as you expect to pay that professional proportionally more for this extra work involved, then alls good.

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

And remember, the pool of professional you can choose from is extremely small.

So up to 15% for inception to completion?

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

As long as you expect to pay that professional proportionally more for this extra work involved, then alls good.

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

And remember, the pool of professional you can choose from is extremely small.

I wonder will people vary the % charge depending on who builds the builder. For example the percentage would be lower if a builder who is up to date and has a good track record is going to construct a building. If a self builder is managing their own build and learn by their mistakes on the job it means that the certifier is going to have both (a) more risk in the certification and also (b) they will probably be contacted more often during project with queries on how to do certain tasks.

4Sticks

I think so and thereby a paradox arises. The self build direct labour types , poor mouth and all , will be the ones who need the Certifiers services most and will be the ones prepared to pay for it the least.

strongback

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wonder will people vary the % charge depending on who builds the builder. For example the percentage would be lower if a builder who is up to date and has a good track record is going to construct a building. If a self builder is managing their own build and learn by their mistakes on the job it means that the certifier is going to have both (a) more risk in the certification and also (b) they will probably be contacted more often during project with queries on how to do certain tasks.

I am generally nervous about builders I don't know and even more so about a certain few I have seen in action!

Some small builders do not consider the BRegs too much or paperwork in general. These builders need to be brought in line. It should not be the certifiers job to police builders who do not follow drawings or know the BRegs fully.

Given the new certs require that builders must verify their work is in compliance with the BRegs it will be interesting to see how small builders will approach their new responsibility of having to sign the SI9 certs.

DOCARCH

strongback wrote: »

I am generally nervous about builders I don't know and even more so about a certain few I have seen in action!

+1 to this!

Fees for acting as assigned certifier, from my point of view at least, will very much be weighted in relation to the experience of the builder.

There are some builders I have come across in the past, who would have a pretty good reputation (for an end product) I simply would not work with under SI 9 (or without double fees at least!) and there are some other builders I have come across in the past (only a couple!) that I would have no issue with working with them under SI 9.

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

+1 to this!

Fees for acting as assigned certifier, from my point of view at least, will very much be weighted in relation to the experience of the builder.

There are some builders I have come across in the past, who would have a pretty good reputation (for an end product) I simply would not work with under SI 9 (or without double fees at least!) and there are some other builders I have come across in the past (only a couple!) that I would have no issue with working with them under SI 9.

agreed

i could count on one finger the amount of builders id have full confidence to do a job with minimal intervention from me....

one one hand the amount of builders id tell clients that their work is 'good'

to all the rest i would tell clients that i do not recommend builders...

make of that what you will after 14 years in the industry.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

to all the rest i would tell clients that i do not recommend builders...

I am in that same boat, and under SI 9 I will be even less likely to even suggest builders. If a client asks 'is the builder competent'...I will just point them towards CIRI.

4Sticks

From the mouths of those in a service industry. What has Hogan done to us ?

4Sticks

The panic gains momentum in Wicklow ...

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

The panic gains momentum in Wicklow ...

It's amazing that the penny is only starting to drop 10 days before this comes into effect!

jonniebgood1

The reported comments of the councillors in the Wicklow article reinforce the need for tighter regulations.

E.g.
"Building regulations have to be updated, but this is a step too far,"
Maybe abandon all building regs???


and
"A small few have dreamt this up to make it difficult for the vast majority." The purpose is actually a better built environment...

I also don't see how they are suggesting that this will cause mass unemployment and emigration? Its just standard council talk. The regulations may actually see more work for legitimate registered tradesmen with cash merchants finding things harder as invoiced work for VAT compliant builders would be required.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reported comments of the councillors in the Wicklow article reinforce the need for tighter regulations.

Yes...everybody agrees with tighter regulations...but all the new building control regulations are doing is reinforcing self regulation and certification and extending the arms length of the powers that be.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I also don't see how they are suggesting that this will cause mass unemployment and emigration? Its just standard council talk. The regulations may actually see more work for legitimate registered tradesmen with cash merchants finding things harder as invoiced work for VAT compliant builders would be required.

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

sydthebeat

It's as simple as this. ...

Those with all the power bare no responsibility.

Those with all the responsibility bare no power.

Under these conditions no system can work properly.

ml100

All this talk of double fees and big increases in the cost of building will result in one thing, less houses being built and that means less work for most of the people posting in this thread. A lot of self build houses are built on the builders own land in locations that suit them but not every one else, the extra cost introduced by all this will mean that these self builders will not be able to get a mortgage as the value of the house will end up being less than the build costs.
What will SI 9 mean to me the consumer?, if I have problems with a build 5 years down the road am I going to have to sue a builder who will have a limited company with very little assets?

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

There are going to be plenty who will perform this role. In the current system there are lots of engineers and architects who sign off on payment in stages for bank loans on projects they haven't designed. To do this they need pi insurance. This is a clear indication tthat there should not be any shortage of prospective certifiers.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

I will only ever certify works that I have designed and inspected during construction. The fundamental issue is that people don't want to pay the required fees-I am being asked to take on a risk and then that risk is not being recognised nor accepted that it needs to be be compensated for! My PI insurance costs me a lot of money and I still have to pay the first €5000 euro for any claim should one arise. People will happily pay lots of money out to service their Audi or pay out a lot for a fancy holiday but not professional fees.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There are going to be plenty who will perform this role..

I think you are wrong. The figures (no. of professionals) who can sign off vs. the volume of building work that is out there simply does not stack up?

There are lots of people who legitimately sign off building works now who will not be permitted to sign off under SI 9.

In addition, SI 9 sign off will involve a significant increase in time input by the professional per build so there will only be so in theory less sign offs per year.