Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

galwaytt

mandy gall wrote: »

Id say it's mahem in the DOE offices - thanks to Phil.

I'd say it's mayhem thanks to DoE staff: they drafted it, Bully Phil just signed it.

So it's their own fault.

Corkblowin

kceire wrote: »

It was always my understanding that the council would release hold over individual houses for sales once contributions are paid.

I understand exactly what you mean - but contributions are applied by the Planning Act, so if they are not paid how can I be refused a cert saying I've complied with the Building Control Act if all is in order?? Only way to deal with non-payment of contributions is warning letters / enforcement.

Not trying to be argumentative by the way - just trying to tease it out.

As an aside one issue I had with the RIAI 'training' was the implication that the assigned certifier had to be in place at planning stage - ie they're going to be saying to clients that technologists etc cannot submit the planning applications either? Next target for them perhaps?

shane6977

martinn123 wrote: »

Well at least you won't be submitting a "massively increased invoice".

Don't you mean "wildly exaggerated invoice"?

kkelliher

martinn123 wrote: »

Well at least you won't be submitting a "massively increased invoice".

For us lowly qs's the chance to submit an invoice alone is a wonderful thing irrespective of the massive nature of it ........

No6

DOCARCH wrote: »

Ask Phil Hogan! :pac:

Well believe it or not RICS have a Chartership for Building Control Surveyors, I should know I am hopefully getting mine soon . It is the only foreign qualification / Charter recognised here in Australia. I am thinking I might apply to the surveyors register in Ireland for the crack when I get it. If they don't let me on I will get the RICS involved!! There are plenty of Building Control Surveyors in the UK they might want to set up as certifiers in Ireland!!

kkelliher

No6 wrote: »

Well believe it or not RICS have a Chartership for Building Control Surveyors, I should know I am hopefully getting mine soon . It is the only foreign qualification / Charter recognised here in Australia. I am thinking I might apply to the surveyors register in Ireland for the crack when I get it. If they don't let me on I will get the RICS involved!! There are plenty of Building Control Surveyors in the UK they might want to set up as certifiers in Ireland!!

You can get the rics as involved as you like but they dont directly operate in ireland as they have a relationship with the scsi and as the scsi dont have a building control surveyor section i dont see why you think they should. Getting on the surveyor register is possible for most people you might just have to go through a process but even getting on it does not mean you can be an approved certifier as you have to be an architect engineer or building surveyor

shane6977

kkelliher wrote: »

You can get the rics as involved as you like but they dont directly operate in ireland as they have a relationship with the scsi and as the scsi dont have a building control surveyor section i dont see why you think they should. Getting on the surveyor register is possible for most people you might just have to go through a process but even getting on it does not mean you can be an approved certifier as you have to be an architect engineer or building surveyor

The statutory register in the building control act 2007 is a register of building surveyors, not surveyors in general.

DOCARCH

Not being one for gossip and rumour! But...there was a bit of a buzz on Twitter last night that a SI is to be published this week derogating, i.e. exempting, some or all healthcare and educational building projects from the new regulations.

Only speculation at this stage, but it did come from an 'informed' source...would be pretty damming if it did come to pass!

mandy gall

DOCARCH wrote: »

Not being one for gossip and rumour! But...there was a bit of a buzz on Twitter last night that a SI is to be published this week derogating, i.e. exempting, some or all healthcare and educational building projects from the new regulations.

Only speculation at this stage, but it did come from an 'informed' source...would be pretty damming if it did come to pass!

Wow! Maybe they'll publish a SI next week exempting self builds...

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

Wow! Maybe they'll publish a SI next week exempting self builds...

Doubt it, I'm afraid. I doubt there is a 'Minister for Self Builds' contacting the DOE and asking WTF!

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

Wow! Maybe they'll publish a SI next week exempting self builds...

Somebody did speculate on Twitter last night that we may see lots of planning applications for one off/4-bed hospitals around the country and then, at a later stage, change of use applications to domestic dwellings. :P

sydthebeat

So it would be a case of the government telling us to "do what we say, not what we do"

The can of worms would be opened further

4Sticks

You see the type of civil servant who produced this SI is not the type of man who will sign his name as "Owner". Responsibility is for others. Owners designers and builders are responsible in Irish law for the buildings they own/design/build. But nobody wants to own schools and hospitals

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

You see the type of civil servant who produced this SI is not the type of man who will sign his name as "Owner". Responsibility is for others. Owners designers and builders are responsible in Irish law for the buildings they own/design/build. But nobody wants to own schools and hospitals

That did strike me as a bit of a stumbling issue for government procured projects...they probably considered signing 'the people of Ireland' as 'owner'?

mandy gall

Im gonna put planning app in 4 a self build small school for dumb ministers..:D

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

SI is to be published this week derogating, i.e. exempting, some or all healthcare and educational building projects from the new regulations.

Here it is!!!

SI 105 2014 - BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
REGULATIONS 2014.

These Regulations provide for alternative but equivalent means
of complying with the requirements under the Building Control
Regulations 1997 to 2014 to assign a person to inspect and
certify the works (the Assigned Certifier) in line with a plan
lodged at commencement and implemented during construction.

The alternative means of compliance applies to a limited range
of public and privately owned buildings classified as first, second
or third level places of education, hospitals or primary care
centres.

http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir070314.PDF

What a fupping joke!

What next, derogation for mult-nationals?

DvB

DOCARCH wrote: »

What next, derogation for mult-nationals?

Dont be surprised if something along those lines comes to pass. The multi nationals have huge financial leverage & if SI.9 holds up large investment you can be sure they'll apply pressure for exemption under the threat of taking their business elsewhere, low corporate tax or not they like to have all the rules in their favour, trust me, they make up 95% of our client base & they like things run their way.

The new amendment isnt that much of a surprise IMO, TBH if SI.9 was structured in anything like a competent way such an exclusion would have been included anyway to get around the ownership issue if nothing else.

The only way SI.9 will change any further is via the legal challenge route IMO. Until then, we'll be forced to make do, as nonsensical as it is, it's here, so we may as well deal with it as best we can & move on until somebofy has the €'s & the will to challenge it properly.

4Sticks

DOCARCH wrote: »

What next, derogation for mult-nationals?

And how do you think our fearless public sector and political class will enforce actions against multi-nationals ?

4Sticks

Hogans aim was one fold only - protect the state from any citizen who is nuisance enough to buy a bad house or apartment.
And then calls it consumer Protection. He p*****s on us and tells us it's raining.

Corkblowin

DOCARCH wrote: »

The alternative means of compliance applies to a limited range of public and privately owned buildings classified as first, second or third level places of education, hospitals or primary care
centres

an absolute ******* disgrace :mad:

Next time Phil or anyone else refers to the 2 years of 'preparation, consultation and training' all we have to do is point to the fact that an amendment was required 1 week after enactment!! Joke of a department.

sydthebeat

Corkblowin wrote: »

an absolute ******* disgrace :mad:

Next time Phil or anyone else refers to the 2 years of 'preparation, consultation and training' all we have to do is point to the fact that an amendment was required 1 week after enactment!! Joke of a department.

technically thats the THIRD amendment

SI 80 first
SI 9 next
now
SI SI 105

as i seem to say a lot these days, if it wasnt so serious, it would be hilarious!!!

Drift

Here we go:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/en.si.2014.0105.pdf

Drift

An "Oversight Group" to decide what is appropriate in these cases.

Nice and vague!!!

4Sticks

The alternative means of compliance applies only to projects
subject to each of the following circumstances:—

(i) planning permission, where applicable, has been
obtained before 1 March, 2014;
(ii) contract documents have been signed before
1 November, 2014; and
(iii) a valid commencement notice has been lodged with the
building control authority no later than 1 March, 2015.

To be fair to the Minister (that does choke me to say that) this SI 105 2014 is only putting in place Transitional Arrangement.
On the face of it anyway these building projects will fall under SI 9 2014 in due course.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

To be fair to the Minister (that does choke me to say that) this SI 105 2014 is only putting in place Transitional Arrangement.
On the face of it anyway these building projects will fall under SI 9 2014 in due course.

agreed, but it doesnt excuse the fact that transitional arrangements should have been introduced for all types of development to allow a for a 'bedding in' and 'problem solving' aspect to the new regs.

They are the most ground breaking laws to be introduced in relation to building control since 1990 yet the assumptions from the complilers of the legislation are staggering.

Drift

True. (to the post above Syds) But why are other large projects (and small ones) not entitled to transitional arrangements?

This is to prevent these large public projects having to be retendered at added cost in both professional fees and construction costs.

What about private projects? The government aren't paying for them so they don't care!

4Sticks

Absolutely.Hogan is a clown and a bully.And what do bullys do when confronted - cave in.

So - over to ye all self builders out there. Let the would be LA councilors know , when they claim "shock/horror"
at these new regs what you think of them for being asleep at the wheel during the upcoming LA elections.
Make democracy work. Ask them when they seek your vote - what will you DO about it now ?

Drift

A little off topic but if you're a contractor tendering for public jobs expect to be busy over the summer so that they can get a lot of contracts signed before November!!

A little mini-boom!

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

Absolutely.Hogan is a clown and a bully.And what do bullys do when confronted - cave in.

So - over to ye all self builders out there. Let the would be LA councilors know , when they claim "shock/horror"
at these new regs what you think of them for being asleep at the wheel during the upcoming LA elections.
Make democracy work. Ask them when they seek your vote - what will you DO about it now ?

Certainly will - i have my brolly by the front door waiting for them and to shelter my from Hogans p***!

mandy gall

mandy gall wrote: »

Certainly will - i have my brolly by the front door waiting for them and to shelter my from Hogans p***!

Sorry...shelter ME from his p***