Current building regulations standards

jonniebgood1

What are the currently required standards to meet building regulations in -

Wall insulation
Roof Insulation
Floor Insulation
Mechanical fixtures and fitting.

I was familiar with these up to 2008 and have been reading about the current ministers proposals to put more onus on registered professionals to only certify compliant houses. In simple mans terms he is missing the simple equation- If the Architect withholds the cert, their client withholds the fee.

Poor Uncle Tom

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What are the currently required standards to meet building regulations in -

Wall insulation
Roof Insulation
Floor Insulation
Mechanical fixtures and fitting.

All depends on a host of other factors including the chosen construction method, overall mass of the building, percentage of the building given over to general living area, orientation of the building, other predominant site conditions, level of airtightness aimed at achieving, ventilation method used, heating method used, standard of other materials used such as windows and doors, etc., etc.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad,27316,en.pdf

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was familiar with these up to 2008 and have been reading about the current ministers proposals to put more onus on registered professionals to only certify compliant houses. In simple mans terms he is missing the simple equation- If the Architect withholds the cert, their client withholds the fee.

Still can't certify non-compliant works as being compliant. It may all be just an academic argument come next March at any rate as it will be next to impossible to get an insurance company to indemnify any firm to certify works under the current proposed requirements.

jonniebgood1

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

All depends on a host of other factors including the chosen construction method, overall mass of the building, percentage of the building given over to general living area, orientation of the building, other predominant site conditions, level of airtightness aimed at achieving, ventilation method used, heating method used, standard of other materials used such as windows and doors, etc., etc.



Still can't certify non-compliant works as being compliant. It may all be just an academic argument come next March at any rate as it will be next to impossible to get an insurance company to indemnify any firm to certify works under the current proposed requirements.

It does allow undue pressure to be put on the certifier though, when their fee may be withheld for doing the right thing. The correct method of checking the construction is carried out correctly is an assessor external to the project. Like in the UK I guess. (IMO).

Regarding the first point I am generalising so I guess the construction would be a cavity wall 2 storey detached dwelling. Takes account of sunpath, oil boiler, double glaze windows, etc. Must it include solar panels & mechanical ventilation?

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regarding the first point I am generalising so I guess the construction would be a cavity wall 2 storey detached dwelling. Takes account of sunpath, oil boiler, double glaze windows, etc. Must it include solar panels & mechanical ventilation?

The only person who can answer that question is you ber assessor, whom you have to engage before you do any work in order to asses if the specification complies or not. It is no longer possible to look at each element individually and say for any degree of certainty if they comply or not.

your last question reinforces this point

Poor Uncle Tom

Compliance will now be a collaboration of elements, materials and professionals and that will be just to certify design in compliance with the regs. Certification of finished building works will be a completely different matter.

jonniebgood1

Thanks for the answers folks.
Without disrespecting them in anyway they demonstrate that the current system is becoming quite impractical in terms of how a client might make their decisions or choices. They seem to ignore the elephant in the room, i.e. money- or to phrase it better the clients budget. When something becomes impractical people ignore it or find way around it and there are gaping loopholes in the current system. For example what about the many people who may have their own funds and intend to build their family home with no intention of selling it- they don't even need the certifier who seems to be the governments answer to inforcement of standards.

To be clear I am coming from this from a construction point of view and pricing POV at the moment (albeit with Architectural technician experience). Budget is imperative and when asked to reduce spec on an already quoted project some items need to be removed. Without being privy to the BER design assessment (if there is one) or any DEAP analysis it seems that I can either give up, or guess. A ridiculous situation IMO.

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thanks for the answers folks.
Without disrespecting them in anyway they demonstrate that the current system is becoming quite impractical in terms of how a client might make their decisions or choices. They seem to ignore the elephant in the room, i.e. money- or to phrase it better the clients budget.

If you think you can build a house under current building regulation without any professional input then you are seriously mistaken People have used the phrase "its not rocket science" to show their disdain for building in ireland for years now. We see the result of that disdain in situations like priory hall, in homes which cost a fortune to heat, in homes where inhabitants are sickly due to fungus and mould because of poor ventilation.

The fee for professional services should be included before you even consider what your 'build' budget will be... but no.. we still have people who think its grand to spend 15K on a kitchen which they rip out and replace after 20 years... but arent willing to spend what is necessary to ensure with get teh best result for our money.... what fools we are!!

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

For example what about the many people who may have their own funds and intend to build their family home with no intention of selling it- they don't even need the certifier who seems to be the governments answer to inforcement of standards.
.

if you think that process absolves you from compliance the you are absolutely and totally incorrect.

it is ILLEGAL to build something which doesnt conform to proper standards.
If you choose not to pass the certification responsibility onto a professional, then by default you, the client, will be held fully liable for non compliance.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To be clear I am coming from this from a construction point of view and pricing POV at the moment (albeit with Architectural technician experience). Budget is imperative and when asked to reduce spec on an already quoted project some items need to be removed. Without being privy to the BER design assessment (if there is one) or any DEAP analysis it seems that I can either give up, or guess. A ridiculous situation IMO.

I dont know what you mean here, are you a technician who is not able to use the DEAP software? Are you expected to provide building reg compliant drawings? if so you need to work with a competent assessor.

give up or guess? well if you cant do it, explain this to your client...
guess?? what kind of professional would you be!!!!
a ridiculous situation to have put yourself in, i agree...

or you could learn to use the software....

jonniebgood1

You have completely misunderstood me on this, as have others judging on thanks (!). I will try to explain better:

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you think you can build a house under current building regulation without any professional input then you are seriously mistaken People have used the phrase "its not rocket science" to show their disdain for building in ireland for years now. We see the result of that disdain in situations like priory hall, in homes which cost a fortune to heat, in homes where inhabitants are sickly due to fungus and mould because of poor ventilation.

Nowhere have I suggested this. Pointing out a loophole as I have done does not equal the position you outline above. Also I don't see where you have got the opinion that I am suggesting people should have poorly ventilated homes. I have read your posts on other issues in the past so will not go over the top on this but I would like you to clarify where you believe that I suggest this...

sydthebeat wrote: »

The fee for professional services should be included before you even consider what your 'build' budget will be... but no.. we still have people who think its grand to spend 15K on a kitchen which they rip out and replace after 20 years... but arent willing to spend what is necessary to ensure with get teh best result for our money.... what fools we are!!

I have re-read my posts and I don't understand where you get any mention of cutting 'professional services' out of a budget? Feel free to quote me and I will further clarify.

sydthebeat wrote: »

if you think that process absolves you from compliance the you are absolutely and totally incorrect.

The loophole I suggested does not apply to me personally, nor to any project that I am involved in. I was merely pointing out that a significant loophole exists. This has a knock on effect on construction projects for professionals also as it creates a 2 tier situation. I can go into this more if you are unclear in what I mean.

sydthebeat wrote: »

it is ILLEGAL to build something which doesnt conform to proper standards.
If you choose not to pass the certification responsibility onto a professional, then by default you, the client, will be held fully liable for non compliance.

Again, where was this suggested- example (Quote)?

For Clarity the thread does not relate to a personal project, it arises from reading up on the ministers proposals from earlier this year and my attempts to get my head around whether they are workable or not. I see problems with them and am interested if you think they are workable?

sydthebeat wrote: »

I dont know what you mean here, are you a technician who is not able to use the DEAP software? Are you expected to provide building reg compliant drawings? if so you need to work with a competent assessor.

No I stated in last post where I am coming from. As per OP I was familiar with these items until 2008- I would expect that you could put 2 and 2 together and realise why my familiarity ended in 2008 (job- redundancy...). Therefore I am not a technician unable to use software or other such lack of ability.

sydthebeat wrote: »

a ridiculous situation to have put yourself in, I agree...

or you could learn to use the software....

dot dot dot indeed!

As pointed out you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick (for which I point out that I take my share of the blame). My final piece of clarification is that I have not put myself in any situation- That is incorrect.
The point which you missed was that in a situation where budget is being considered, the current compliance with building regulations does not lend itself easily to the consideration. With budget being an important consideration in a project this should not be intangible in the manner it seems. Nor would it be resolved by learning software that is the responsibility of someone else!

jonniebgood1

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Certification of finished building works will be a completely different matter.

A register of construction companies would be interesting. I have not seen many workable suggestions for this. What would the qualifying criteria be?

sydthebeat

firstly, if the reason for this thread is to discuss:

reading up on the ministers proposals from earlier this year and my attempts to get my head around whether they are workable or not.

the its very unusual to locate any such discussion in a thread entitled

Current building regulations standards

1. its nothing to do with 'building regulations' its everything to do with 'building control'
2. its not current, its impending

secondly, you could have joined in with the already active and educational discussion here in the building control amendment regs 2013 thread. As a moderator, im sure youve used the search function many times.
I will definitely agree that i took your thread up to mean something different than youve clarified in your second last post, however by using an obscure, mythical project as the motive for discussing the impending amendment, im sure you can understand the misinterpretation.

thirdly, youve referred to "loophole" twice above. Please let me clarify for you than no such loophole exists. There is no loophole that allows

people ignore it or find way around it and there are gaping loopholes in the current system.

. There is no way around the building regulations, as i said above, if a self builder decides not to pay a certifier than that does not mean they have found away around certification, nor have they ignored it, nor is that a loophole. What that means is that they have no professional, with insurance, who has taken responsibility for compliance. This means that they themselves by default take full responsibility for complaisance and will be found liable to the full extent of the law if its found that the build does not comply with regulations.

I need to stress this point because this forum is read by many self builders whom i dont want to be under the incorrect assumption that simply by not engaging a certifier that they somehow are exposing a loophole or finding a way around regs. Thats a dangerous erroneous assumption. If they do what is suggested by you in post #6 they will be breaking the law.


so taking what ive posted above im not going to deconstruct your post above because we'd be arguing an aunt sally.

and just to finalise, when you say

in a situation where budget is being considered, the current compliance with building regulations does not lend itself easily to the consideration

you treat building regulation compliance as some kind of mallable factor. Its not, is minimum standard and not a "consideration" but a base line starting point.

any budget MUST start from this base line, with the full understanding that engaging a certifier is passing the responsibility.. non-engagement doesnt mean the responsibility is negated, it means its squarely on the clients shoulders.

Poor Uncle Tom

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A register of construction companies would be interesting. I have not seen many workable suggestions for this. What would the qualifying criteria be?

A register of construction companies would be essential. At the very minimum it should require:
a, a practical knowledge of the Building Regulations,
b, being fully bonded for works undertaken,
c, being a member of a body who would keep their members updated on the Building Regulations updates and progressive building practices,
d, adequate insurances.

Using someone from a register like that would ease notion of the burden of co-signing certificates with them at least.

sydthebeat

However it should be noted that the certificate the 'contractor' signs is a qualified certificate because its based on plans and particulars supplied by others.

The assigned certifier however has no qualifications and must sign certificates to state they are CERTAIN the contractor, and others trades / professionals, have designed and constructed in full compliance with the building regulations.

Is anyone ever certain of anything anymore??

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

However it should be noted that the certificate the 'contractor' signs is a qualified certificate because its based on plans and particulars supplied by others.

The assigned certifier however has no qualifications and must sign certificates to state they are CERTAIN the contractor, and others trades / professionals, have designed and constructed in full compliance with the building regulations.

Is anyone ever certain of anything anymore??

To me (and lots of others) the current proposals in this regard of unqualified certification of others works by the certifier is uninsurable, impractical and unworkable.

Is it reasonable that I should be held responsible if a plumbing contractor fails to tighten a joint in a pressurised heating system, which may be covered up when I come to inspect, and this only comes to light after several thousand euros worth of damage has been caused?

sydthebeat

i know of many practitioners who have already stopped certifying because of the "sue" culture that has arisen in the recent years.... what system will we have come next march if

1. practitioners refuse to offer the service
2. insurance providers refused to indemnify

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

its very unusual to locate any such discussion in a thread entitled

Current building regulations standards

1. its nothing to do with 'building regulations' its everything to do with 'building control'
2. its not current, its impending.

I don't mean to be rude but this feels pedantic- My OP and subsequent posts clarify what I seek to discuss. Maybe you are right that I could have posted elsewhere but that is inconsequential now.

sydthebeat wrote: »

secondly, you could have joined in with the already active and educational discussion here in the building control amendment regs 2013 thread. As a moderator, im sure youve used the search function many times.
I will definitely agree that i took your thread up to mean something different than youve clarified in your second last post, however by using an obscure, mythical project as the motive for discussing the impending amendment, im sure you can understand the misinterpretation.
.

OP clearly refers in the first instance to the 'current' regulations, as well as the proposals. Again I see know need to engage at a level suggesting that you or I do not know how to use the 'search' function!

sydthebeat wrote: »

thirdly, youve referred to "loophole" twice above. Please let me clarify for you than no such loophole exists. There is no loophole that allows . There is no way around the building regulations, as i said above, if a self builder decides not to pay a certifier than that does not mean they have found away around certification, nor have they ignored it, nor is that a loophole. What that means is that they have no professional, with insurance, who has taken responsibility for compliance. This means that they themselves by default take full responsibility for complaisance and will be found liable to the full extent of the law if its found that the build does not comply with regulations.

I need to stress this point because this forum is read by many self builders whom i dont want to be under the incorrect assumption that simply by not engaging a certifier that they somehow are exposing a loophole or finding a way around regs. Thats a dangerous erroneous assumption. If they do what is suggested by you in post #6 they will be breaking the law.

This is not a land of make believe Syd- I refer to a loophole because their is a loophole. You do not believe that people do not break the law so why do you believe this loophole doesn't exist because of the 'law'. Particularly in a case where the one breaking the law is ultimately the one who will suffer (as in from a poor build). Again you are in danger of crediting me with an opinion that I have not expressed. I asked you in my previous post to back up certain assumptions you made. You have not done that but neither have you withdrawn those comments, rather you continue on a similar (slightly less forthright) path. While your views are idealistic they barely acknowledge reality.

sydthebeat wrote: »

you treat building regulation compliance as some kind of mallable factor. Its not, is minimum standard and not a "consideration" but a base line starting point.
.

??? My focus is on compliance with the current regualations!
Please provide an example quoting my post where I suggest that building regulations do not need to be complied with. As a moderator you should understand the importance of quoting people rather than putting words in their mouth. So either quote where I say the above or withdraw it.

Gryire

sydthebeat wrote: »

and just to finalise, when you say you treat building regulation compliance as some kind of mallable factor. Its not, is minimum standard and not a "consideration" but a base line starting point.

Compliance with building regulations in this country is a joke. Most 'professional' don't even know what they are.

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude but this feels pedantic- My OP and subsequent posts clarify what I seek to discuss. Maybe you are right that I could have posted elsewhere but that is inconsequential now.

not really, i can always merge the pertinent posts with the existing thread.

And im not sure how an architectural technician (ex or otherwise) thinks its pedantic to point out the, quite obvious, difference between 'complying with 'building regulations' and 'complying with building control'.
Lets be honest, you didnt actually reveal your true intent for this thread until your third post.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

OP clearly refers in the first instance to the 'current' regulations, as well as the proposals. Again I see know need to engage at a level suggesting that you or I do not know how to use the 'search' function!
.

I think we do, because if you had, you would have seen the many existing threads which deal with this issue. As it seems the only reason for you to open this thread was to vent...

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is not a land of make believe Syd- I refer to a loophole because their is a loophole. You do not believe that people do not break the law so why do you believe this loophole doesn't exist because of the 'law'. Particularly in a case where the one breaking the law is ultimately the one who will suffer (as in from a poor build). Again you are in danger of crediting me with an opinion that I have not expressed. I asked you in my previous post to back up certain assumptions you made. You have not done that but neither have you withdrawn those comments, rather you continue on a similar (slightly less forthright) path. While your views are idealistic they barely acknowledge reality.
.

im sorry but you really need to find out the meaning of the word loophole

A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without technically breaking the law or contract. In response, lawmakers and regulators work to pass reforms that will close the loophole.

Ignoring a law, or being unafraid of sanction is absolutely NOT utilising a "loophole". A loophole allows you to circumvent a law without technically breaking it.
you have already said

When something becomes impractical people ignore it or find way around it and there are gaping loopholes in the current system

..... again let me clarify, there is NO loophole.
I think people need to understand that the process you described earlier, where no certifier is engaged because no mortgage is needed, is somehow finding a loophole around complying with "current building regulation standards" is completely incorrect and dangerous. That client becomes the certifer by default. Not only that but they are putting the resale value of their investment in possible trouble by not having propoer staged inspections and certification. I am seeing this become an issue increasingly as financial institutions are a lot more reticent about releasing mortgage finance on uncertifed properties. I know at least 3 sales that have fallen through because of this issue this year alone.

at this point let me STRONGLY advise you to reread our forum charter (im sure you have already, being a mod and all) especially section 6 which states:

6.0 Respect the law

6.1 Any thread/post that is looking for ways to get around the planning process, or building regulations, or any other statutory legislation, or advising somebody to ignore these legislations and regulations, will be deleted and the poster will be banned indefinitely.

??? My focus is on compliance with the current regualations!
Please provide an example quoting my post where I suggest that building regulations do not need to be complied with. As a moderator you should understand the importance of quoting people rather than putting words in their mouth. So either quote where I say the above or withdraw it

i have already done this. you said

in a situation where budget is being considered, the current compliance with building regulations does not lend itself easily to the consideration

compliance with building regulations is NOT a 'consideration'. 'Consideration' infers making a decision one way or the other. You cannot make a choice when it comes to complying with building regs. You have to comply as a minimum. Surely you know this to be true?

muffler

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is not a land of make believe Syd- I refer to a loophole because their is a loophole.

You have mentioned this "loophole" in the regulations a few times now. Can you tell us what it is please?

Oh, and are you referring to the current regulations as per the thread title or the regulations that become operable from next March?

sydthebeat

Gryire wrote: »

Compliance with building regulations in this country is a joke. Most 'professional' don't even know what they are.

The system is most definitely not fit for purpose, but sweeping statements like the above is simply sensationalism and "bar talk".

Gryire

sydthebeat wrote: »

The system is most definitely not fit for purpose, but sweeping statements like the above is simply sensationalism and "bar talk".

Not bar talk. The new CPR has become law on the1st July. How many professionals are working to it!

sydthebeat

Gryire wrote: »

Not bar talk. The new CPR has become law on the1st July. How many professionals are working to it!

on the basis that in my own county, there has been less than 10 commencement notices sent in since 1st july, is say it's pretty much impossible to tell how many professionals are working to it.

But what I can tell you is that those professionals who demanded certified products be used up to this point are not going to change their standards. A directive has become a regulation. Theres nothing very new our ground breaking in these conduction product regs.

Time and again you will read here professionals advising the use of certified products and condemning the user of non certified ones.

Gryire

Professionals specify but who checks that was specified was done!

sinnerboy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What are the currently required standards to meet building regulations in -

Wall insulation
Roof Insulation
Floor Insulation
Mechanical fixtures and fitting.

All current Technical Guidance Documents to building regulations can be found here including those relating to conservation of energy.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was familiar with these up to 2008 and have been reading about the current ministers proposals to put more onus on registered professionals to only certify compliant houses. In simple mans terms he is missing the simple equation- If the Architect withholds the cert, their client withholds the fee.

With new legislation due to take affect from next March the minister has increased legal liabilities for certifiers that is certainly true. Architects have lived with the dichotomy you outline for decades so no change there.

sinnerboy

Gryire wrote: »

Not bar talk. The new CPR has become law on the1st July. How many professionals are working to it!

I don't know. Do you ?

Gryire

sinnerboy wrote: »

I don't know. Do you ?

Very few.

sinnerboy

Gryire wrote: »

Professionals specify but who checks that was specified was done!

sinnerboy

Gryire wrote: »

Very few.

How do you know ?

Gryire

sinnerboy wrote: »

How do you know ?

When you work in the contracting business every day it is very obvious. This how there so many non compliant contractors. I also know of compliant contractors who are being put out of business because of non-compliant ones doing the work cheaper.

sinnerboy

So you dont know then.

Gryire

sinnerboy wrote: »

So you dont know then.

Can you rephrase the question

sinnerboy

Not sure that would help anyone.

This might - a guide to the CPR .

Gryire

That is the document. How many manufacturers/importers/distributors adhere to this document.

sinnerboy

Shall we go back to here and ad infinitum?

Gryire

My point is that the CPR is now a legal requirement and most professionals are still not working to it.

How many professionals in the country ? I don't know.

How many professionals are working to the CPR ? I don't know.

What I do know is that most contract specifications I see do not reflect the new regulations.

Most professionals I speak to are not working to it.

sydthebeat

Gryire wrote: »

My point is that the CPR is now a legal requirement and most professionals are still not working to it.

How many professionals in the country ? I don't know.

How many professionals are working to the CPR ? I don't know.

What I do know is that most contract specifications I see do not reflect the new regulations.

Most professionals I speak to are not working to it.

i can honestly say ive never seen a specification that did not
1. refer to compliance with TGD D
2. refer to accredited materials and processes only

like i said above, all the new regulations have done is set a directive into law, professionals have been working in compliance with the directive since april 2011 ..... and this regulation basically sets a European wide framework for the TGD D that we have been working to since 1992

there is nothing shiny and new here at all....... it simply sets into law what manufacturers have been doing voluntary for years.

Gryire

sydthebeat wrote: »

i can honestly say ive never seen a specification that did not
1. refer to compliance with TGD D
2. refer to accredited materials and processes only

like i said above, all the new regulations have done is set a directive into law, professionals have been working in compliance with the directive since april 2011 ..... and this regulation basically sets a European wide framework for the TGD D that we have been working to since 1992

there is nothing shiny and new here at all....... it simply sets into law what manufacturers have been doing voluntary for years.

I agree with you about TGD D. I have a lot of specs refer to 'current building regulations'. That does not mean that it happens.

How many manufacturers have been certified by the appropriate notified body!

sinnerboy

Another question ! Rather undermines your authority to make sweeping statements as you do.

Gryire

sinnerboy wrote: »

Another question ! Rather undermines your authority to make sweeping statements as you do.

The answer is in single figure percentages!

sydthebeat

Gryire wrote: »

The answer is in single figure percentages!

source please

sinnerboy

Gryire wrote: »

The answer is in single figure percentages!

You are boring me now

jonniebgood1

muffler wrote: »

You have mentioned this "loophole" in the regulations a few times now. Can you tell us what it is please?

I described it in a previoous post which I re-quote below for clarity:

When something becomes impractical people ignore it or find way around it and there are gaping loopholes in the current system. For example what about the many people who may have their own funds and intend to build their family home with no intention of selling it- they don't even need the certifier who seems to be the governments answer to inforcement of standards.

Syd seems to doubt that this can happen. I cannot fathom why so, as I have seen it before my eyes, in fact I passed it on the road at 8am this morning. Repeatedly saying that this is not a loophole is open to ridicule given the record of compliance with Building regulations in Irish construction of the past 15 years. In fact I am trying not to ridicule that suggestion.

I suppose the obvious response from me to such a denial is to question whether Syd (or others) believe that people are building in full compliance with the building regulations? If the answer is no then they are finding some way, legal or not of avoiding compliance.

muffler wrote: »

Oh, and are you referring to the current regulations as per the thread title or the regulations that become operable from next March?

The OP was quite clear in reference to current building regulations:

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What are the currently required standards to meet building regulations in -

Wall insulation
Roof Insulation
Floor Insulation
Mechanical fixtures and fitting.

I was familiar with these up to 2008 and have been reading about the current ministers proposals to put more onus on registered professionals to only certify compliant houses. In simple mans terms he is missing the simple equation- If the Architect withholds the cert, their client withholds the fee.

muffler

When something becomes impractical people ignore it or find way around it and there are gaping loopholes in the current system. For example what about the many people who may have their own funds and intend to build their family home with no intention of selling it- they don't even need the certifier who seems to be the governments answer to inforcement of standards.

Now then. Im not sure if you are trolling or just naive. Thats not a loophole, thats people breaking the law of the land.

The BC Act puts a clear responsibility on all property owners that it is their (and theirs alone) responsibility to comply with the building regs made pursuant to the BC Act.

Sure I may as well say I know a way to get out of paying road tax......drive away and hope you're not caught.

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

not really, i can always merge the pertinent posts with the existing thread.

And im not sure how an architectural technician (ex or otherwise) thinks its pedantic to point out the, quite obvious, difference between 'complying with 'building regulations' and 'complying with building control'.
Lets be honest, you didnt actually reveal your true intent for this thread until your third post.

Mind reading?? You are making a mockery out of this.
The first line of my OP revealed in very clear fashion what I wished to know. That the answer to that is variable is irrelevant, I honestly don't see what a response in the tone above by you is meant to achieve...

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think we do, because if you had, you would have seen the many existing threads which deal with this issue. As it seems the only reason for you to open this thread was to vent...

As above The first line of my OP revealed in very clear fashion what I wished to know.

sydthebeat wrote: »

im sorry but you really need to find out the meaning of the word loophole

Ignoring a law, or being unafraid of sanction is absolutely NOT utilising a "loophole". A loophole allows you to circumvent a law without technically breaking it.
you have already said ..... again let me clarify, there is NO loophole.

You are missing the point. I have no interest in your argument about a word, nor your carefully sought out definition. Unless you are proposing that everybody is abiding by the building regulations then you Agree with me that people are not in full compliance. All of which makes links to legal definitions a little bit trite at this stage. FYI http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trite

sydthebeat wrote: »

at this point let me STRONGLY advise you to reread our forum charter (im sure you have already, being a mod and all) especially section 6 which states:

6.0 Respect the law

This is quite trying at this stage- Please show me where I have not done this. I have been nothing but courteous up to this point but your responses are irrelevant to what was asked. The above quoted part is an example. You quote to respect the law when the opposite is not suggested. What next- advice not to break the speed limits! You have clearly missed the whole point of this thread which was clearly stated in the FIRST LINE. I suggest you re-read the OP.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i have already done this. you said

in a situation where budget is being considered, the current compliance with building regulations does not lend itself easily to the consideration

compliance with building regulations is NOT a 'consideration'. 'Consideration' infers making a decision one way or the other. You cannot make a choice when it comes to complying with building regs. You have to comply as a minimum. Surely you know this to be true?

Are you intentionally mis-reading my post. You have quoted me first and in the next line you mis-represent my view. One line after the other, I find this hard to fathom again. I will try and break this down to make it more clear.

1. The current building regulations do not set exact figures for what I asked in my OP. This was clearly told to me in post no. 02 of this thread (thanks to Tom). Therefore this is the 'current compliance'. I would call it a variable as insulation sizes can be increased as can the number of smart technologies in use.
2. Considering a budget, is generally what happens on most project, i.e. a client/ person has a budget and they will have priorities that are more important than others. This does not mean that they plan to not comply with building regulations, it should be taken that compliance is part of the on-site process. Nonetheless budget must be considered to enable choices.
3. Varying the choices as per point 1 needs to be considered together with the cost (as per point 2). Or in plain terms "in a situation where budget is being considered, the current compliance with building regulations does not lend itself easily to the consideration ".
That is what I said- You mis-read it and still are doing so. Let me know if this has clarified same.

jonniebgood1

muffler wrote: »

Now then. Im not sure if you are trolling or just naive. Thats not a loophole, thats people breaking the law of the land.

The BC Act puts a clear responsibility on all property owners that it is their (and theirs alone) responsibility to comply with the building regs made pursuant to the BC Act.

Sure I may as well say I know a way to get out of paying road tax......drive away and hope you're not caught.

I know Syd has put emphasis on his definition of loophole. I'm not interested in an argument over English definitions. The point remains that people are not in compliance whatever you want to call it. Call it loophole, ways around the system, avoiding compliance, etc.

Despite myself and the above statement, I googled a definition of loophole that describes as per my posts

loop·hole (lphl)
n.
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole

I would prefer leave arguments about proper English word definitions to the side of the discussion- It should be clear what is discussed- to anyone in doubt that is the correct application of the regs (I feel the need to restate that and to refer back to the first line of the OP)

sinnerboy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It should be clear what is discussed

Indulge us. Please re state what you want.

jonniebgood1

sinnerboy wrote: »

Indulge us. Please re state what you want.

*Some of the comments by moderators have left me bewildered- This is not rocket science!

My OP

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What are the currently required standards to meet building regulations in -

Wall insulation
Roof Insulation
Floor Insulation
Mechanical fixtures and fitting.

I was familiar with these up to 2008 and have been reading about the current ministers proposals to put more onus on registered professionals to only certify compliant houses. In simple mans terms he is missing the simple equation- If the Architect withholds the cert, their client withholds the fee.

*(I am aware that a comment like this will annoy said moderators but it needed to be stated at this juncture)

sinnerboy

Does this suffice ?

sydthebeat

do you not understand both of these points?

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

All depends on a host of other factors including the chosen construction method, overall mass of the building, percentage of the building given over to general living area, orientation of the building, other predominant site conditions, level of airtightness aimed at achieving, ventilation method used, heating method used, standard of other materials used such as windows and doors, etc., etc.
.

sydthebeat wrote: »

The only person who can answer that question is you ber assessor, whom you have to engage before you do any work in order to asses if the specification complies or not. It is no longer possible to look at each element individually and say for any degree of certainty if they comply or not.

jonniebgood1

sinnerboy wrote: »

Does this suffice ?

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you not understand both of these points?

I was responding to a question folks. And if your asking has the query been answered clearly then you need only read the rest of the thread to see that it hasn't. I have bizarrely been quoted definitions of words and referred to the forum charter on legality issues despite the fact that my query is based on intended compliance with the regulations. I am not a moderator on this forum but I am on a different section of this site and I would expect a moderator to conduct themselves in a more rational, less confrontational manner than has been forthcoming. Having referred to your forum charter (after being requested to do so) I noted the following point 1.3:

Common sense rules of etiquette and good manners are to be respected at all times.

I find in moderating on issues that rushing to judgement on any issue is never a good idea (but it happens from time to time). If you do do this then you need to step back and review it from a distance rather than compounding the situation with smartass replies and ignoring requests to stand over previously made comments. That there are now 2 of you backing each other up resembles a school playground so whether you recognise that or not is down to yourselves. I will not resort to incongruent bickering and intend to be civil as I have been from the beginning, I expect the same in return...

sydthebeat

It's seems you only created this thread to vent on an issue you don't seem to be in full possession of the facts about.

The only 'question' you asked has been answered over and over.... So you either refuse to accept the answer or you don't understand the answer. Which is it?

muffler

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was responding to a question folks. And if your asking has the query been answered clearly then you need only read the rest of the thread to see that it hasn't. I have bizarrely been quoted definitions of words and referred to the forum charter on legality issues despite the fact that my query is based on intended compliance with the regulations. I am not a moderator on this forum but I am on a different section of this site and I would expect a moderator to conduct themselves in a more rational, less confrontational manner than has been forthcoming. Having referred to your forum charter (after being requested to do so) I noted the following point 1.3:



I find in moderating on issues that rushing to judgement on any issue is never a good idea (but it happens from time to time). If you do do this then you need to step back and review it from a distance rather than compounding the situation with smartass replies and ignoring requests to stand over previously made comments. That there are now 2 of you backing each other up resembles a school playground so whether you recognise that or not is down to yourselves. I will not resort to incongruent bickering and intend to be civil as I have been from the beginning, I expect the same in return...

Warning given. And if you persist in this behavior I will ban you from this forum as you have wasted quite a lot of mod time.