ATs & Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Tim76

Can anyone advise on the restrictions that will be placed on Architectural Technologists following the implementation of the regs on 1st March?

BryanF

Tim76 wrote: »

Can anyone advise on the restrictions that will be placed on Architectural Technologists following the implementation of the regs on 1st March?

See here, the guys have gone into this question over the last few months:
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056921361/1

Ultimately an arch tech can no longer certify a building or extension over 40msq!
For some retarded reason an AT is seen as less suitable to certify building regs than a surveyor, engineer (or even many architects and RIAI have done NOTHING to help the AT.) Even though an AT spends there college life learning the building regs, building physics, and construction detailing!

archtech

BryanF wrote: »

For some retarded reason an AT is seen as less suitable to certify building regs than a surveyor, engineer (or even many architects and RIAI have done NOTHING to help the AT.) Even though an AT spends there college life learning the building regs, building physics, and construction detailing!

The reason is there is no statutory register for ATs and I'm lead to believe this is the 'only' reason as to why we haven't been included. However the department have as I understand it expressed the view that they are not interested in have a register set up anytime in the immediate future.

BryanF

archtech wrote: »

no statutory register

the RIAI take money from AT's for a RIAI'T "membership!"..

the RIAI didn't seek AT inclusion under the new B'reg system

'only' reason

or not - will leave many 3rd level educated, self employed AT's in limbo this year..

4Sticks

.... and limit choices to the consumer. No wonder the RIAI did , or did not , act as they have done.

4Sticks

This is the commercial context to all of this. I believe that when activity lifts , which it will do in time , that AT's will by necessity have to be included.

Those of us still left that is .

sydthebeat

archtech wrote: »

The reason is there is no statutory register for ATs and I'm lead to believe this is the 'only' reason as to why we haven't been included. However the department have as I understand it expressed the view that they are not interested in have a register set up anytime in the immediate future.

There was no statutory register for architects before 2007.
Both ATs and architects were in the same boat, yet the RIAI ltd made no effort to get ATs included in the BCA 2007, when a piece of legislation was all that was required to get Architects, Quantity Surveyor and Building Surveyors 'registered'.

There does currently exist a register in the form of RIAT tech but they (RIAI ltd) are actively working against promoting Architectural Technologists.

There also exists a MCIAT register, In Ireland, but the DOE is actively refusing to recognise this.

archtech

There was no statutory register for architects before 2007.[/QUOTE]

True

sydthebeat wrote: »

Both ATs and architects were in the same boat, yet the RIAI ltd made no effort to get ATs included in the BCA 2007, when a piece of legislation was all that was required to get Architects, Quantity Surveyor and Building Surveyors 'registered'.

Bottom line is and was , the RIAI is primarily interested in protecting the interests of Architects.

sydthebeat wrote: »

There does currently exist a register in the form of RIAT tech but they (RIAI ltd) are actively working against promoting Architectural Technologists.

There also exists a MCIAT register, In Ireland, but the DOE is actively refusing to recognise this.

I would agree with you but neither is statutory in this jurisdiction.

The information I have received form a good source advised that only reason that any Statutory register was set up was because the professional bodies (RIAI, SCSI) proposed that they would administrator the register, as opposed to doing it the proper way of having a totally independent register.

sydthebeat

archtech wrote: »

I would agree with you but neither is statutory in this jurisdiction.

The information I have received form a good source advised that only reason that any Statutory register was set up was because the professional bodies (RIAI, SCSI) proposed that they would administrator the register, as opposed to doing it the proper way of having a totally independent register.

i understand, i just find it a very weak argument to claim that the reason ATs are exclude dis the registry argument, when ATs are in the very same boat right now that architects were in 2007.

IF riai had any interest in the progression of the profession then they would have lobbied for this amendment to create a statutory register for ATs.
But no, they have done eternally more to hamper and restrict ATs in the last 10 years than they have done to promote.

Tim76

sydthebeat wrote: »

There does currently exist a register in the form of RIAT tech but they (RIAI ltd) are actively working against promoting Architectural Technologists.

Should the RIAI not be lobbying for the inclusion of ATs so? ATs that are registered with them and paying membership fees just like the architects?

If the RIAI can do nothing for ATs then what's the point of even becoming or staying a member?

Passed the RIAI Arch Tech entry exam last year but I'm beginning to wonder if it is even worth paying membership fees for the year ahead

sydthebeat

Tim76 wrote: »

Should the RIAI not be lobbying for the inclusion of ATs so? ATs that are registered with them and paying membership fees just like the architects?

If the RIAI can do nothing for ATs then what's the point of even becoming or staying a member?

Passed the RIAI Arch Tech entry exam last year but I'm beginning to wonder if it is even worth paying membership fees for the year ahead

What if i was to tell you that the director of riai lobbied the dept of education NOT to allow ats lead summer works schemes, thus excluding us from a valuable source of income?

May i ask what value you see in riaitech membership? Or at least why you joined?

BryanF

Tim76 wrote: »

Passed the RIAI Arch Tech entry exam last year but I'm beginning to wonder if it is even worth paying membership fees for the year ahead

why not write to them outlining your concerns and see what there respond with

archtech

sydthebeat wrote: »

i just find it a very weak argument to claim that the reason ATs are exclude dis the registry argument, when ATs are in the very same boat right now that architects were in 2007.

If it is not the case why then has the department and minster continuously advised AT's to pursue registration as a building surveyor or architect when asked about the matter.

sydthebeat

archtech wrote: »

If it is not the case why then has the department and minster continuously advised AT's to pursue registration as a building surveyor or architect when asked about the matter.

I'm not sure of your point.

My own communications with rcis shows that architectural technology is not considered by them as any kind of stepping stone to registering as a surveyor. I know ciat have asked the department to Consider mciat registration along the surveyor route, but as of yet that has fallen on deaf ears.

The route for registration as an architect is not fit for propose as has been recently reported.

As for the minister pointing technicians to those routes, well just goes to show the contempt he views our profession.

No6

Are you talking to RICS or SUSI syd?

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

Are you talking to RICS or SUSI syd?

Rics.

archtech

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point.

My own communications with rcis shows that architectural technology is not considered by them as any kind of stepping stone to registering as a surveyor. I know ciat have asked the department to Consider mciat registration along the surveyor route, but as of yet that has fallen on deaf ears.

The route for registration as an architect is not fit for propose as has been recently reported.

As for the minister pointing technicians to those routes, well just goes to show the contempt he views our profession.

My point is the department don't give two ***** about us and are not interested in having a register for ATs at the moment..... And are happy to tell us to pursue entry to either of the two registers, without really understanding our role or qualifications.

With regard to CIAT and registration via the surveyor route, it is my understanding that it was the department suggested that CIAT pursue that route, however for many ATs it 's not a straight forward route, as there's a load of hops to be jumped through (ciob charteredship, then add admission to the architects and surveyors facility etc) and no guaranteed result at the end of it, along with fees. It is my understanding that CIAT have made a submission to effectively have MCIAT on an equal standing as MCIOB, as an interim measure until such time as there's a change in thinking in the department/ with the minister with regard to a statutory AT register. But as you say the RICS don't consider the AT qualification as suitable.

No6

RICS do consider MCIAT as suitable for the assocRICS, there is additional study involved in progressing to chartered, or they also have an adoption route and a professional experience route.

I am not sure of the CIOB route and if you need to be MCIAT or not first.

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

RICS do consider MCIAT as suitable for the assocRICS, there is additional study involved in progressing to chartered, or they also have an adoption route and a professional experience route.

I am not sure of the CIOB route and if you need to be MCIAT or not first.

Well that route would certainly be more accessible to me. Are you 100% on that no 6?

The two routes you refer to must have some surveying related education underpinning; according to my communications.

No6

I am currently undergoing the professional experience route for Building Control Surveying with RICS Ocieania, I had no building surveying qualifications, I did have my BSc in Architectural Technology and my MCIAT + 20 years experience.

The AssocRICS involved additional study and may not be available outside the uk, it certainly isn't available here at least!!

Download the compantacies for Building Surveyor from the RICS site, do you think AT's fit the bill in most of them, I do!!

tmg52

Complaint to the European Commission regarding the BCA S.I 9 of 2014
Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No.9 of 2014), (formally known as S.I 80 of 2013) is due to come into force on 1 March 2014 is discriminatory and will expressly prohibit Architectural Technoligists from providing architectural services in Ireland.
To my mind and that of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT), the legislation is in breach of European Law in respect of competition, free market and freedom of movement.

I urge you to contact your TDs and MEPs with information regarding your formal complaint lodged with the EU, DONT leave it to the few, act now, its too late for your action.
The Minister for the Environment, under the Building Control Act 1990 has the authority to extend the Regulations to include a Register (held and administered in the Republic of Ireland under this legislation) for Chartered Architectural Technologists.

Complaints must be submitted by email to: SG-PLAINTES@ec.europa.eu

A complaint template (tailor it to suit you situation) and the background documents can be obtained from James@ciat.org.uk

Alternatively I will copy it upon request.

MDGAT

Hi All,

Can I suggest that the 1st of March Deadline is now here and that we must accept it.

Now, I propose that ALL AT's express an interest in a recognised AT register in Ireland. This is the catalyst for CHANGE.

There must be 1000's of AT's in Ireland, It will be easy to network and get our numbers in place. It will take numbers to get the Government to act, but they will, there are elections in 2 years and we have the best argument to put forward

WE ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS TO CERTIFY BUILDING REGULATIONS.....we're just not organised yet...

Please get networking, spread the word....A NEW REGISTER OF AT'S....I can get 20 guys with 1 email....

I'm going to start a new TREAD...please support me.

M

shane6977

I believe AT's were pretty much ignored at the RIAI CPD on the Building Control Regulations yesterday....no surprise there.

Was anyone there and what are your thoughts?

DOCARCH

I was not there but I did here that AT rep, on the RIAI council, has asked the RIAI to refund any ATs that did attend.

ruskin

Some colleagues of mine were at an RIAI cpd course this week and they happened to mention that after March 1, the only people who can even submit a planning application must be on the register, as any accompanying application will have to include form of declaration of compliance. I was always under the assumption that while a technologist might not be able to certify works etc, after March 1, they would still be able to at least lodge a planning application- anyone else heard this?

sydthebeat

ruskin wrote: »

Some colleagues of mine were at an RIAI cpd course this week and they happened to mention that after March 1, the only people who can even submit a planning application must be on the register, as any accompanying application will have to include form of declaration of compliance. I was always under the assumption that while a technologist might not be able to certify works etc, after March 1, they would still be able to at least lodge a planning application- anyone else heard this?

first time ive heard anything like that... as far as i see it, theres no correlation between planing and building control...


but i have always said that the end game of the BC act is that registered architects will only be allowed design for planning.

davgtrek

I was at the Cork presentation yesterday. They only really acknowledged AT's after some questions from the floor at the end of the day.
Basically we slot into the Ancillary Certifier role which forms one of the many components to the overall Design certifier.

So we can certify our contribution/service to the overall design certifier ( architect/engineer/surveyor).

This role obviously requires PI and you are not considered "competent" to certify without PI.

The president yesterday acknowledged that he is keen to get AT's more involved and mentioned that previous presidents were not.

It was a long and generally horrifically boring day as speaker after speaker stood up and re-read the text heavy legal powerpoint slides back to us !

It was too much info to take in and not enough summarising was done by any of the speakers.

4Sticks

Lacking leadership ?
In Ireland !

pocgoc

Are you not really annoyed and depressed slightly? We're constantly looked for information how to make details and construction technology work in a building cause most engineers , surveyors and architects can't think of a good quality construction other than concrete block sandwich. You point to a building and ask them how is that made, reply usually is "block". No thought for steel , timber ,masonry and even straw!!!!!!!!! "it looks fabulous though". yeah well "looking fabulous " is your job and making it work is our (AT) job. And which you think is looked upon as correct the Fabulous side of view, but sure the hell if it stood for 20-30 years it be grand and yeah its okay if it isn't functional well in the climate (too cold and hot), it looks good though thats what counts. OH this Building Act is such a hypocritical piece of thrash that was only looked after the Riai , engineer and surveyors (what do the know about construction? 1 semester of construction technology to our AT 8 semesters). Phil Hogan you scoundrel (fellow county man) i heard how ignorant he can be to peoples faces and my word how blatantly ignorant to blank Architectural Technicians and Technologists is unbelievable.
What should we do? I'm up for signing up to the CIAT now, before i thought i won't need it, wasn't i wrong then. I beg every AT sign up to them. its numbers we need!

davgtrek

it's two separate issues.
membership of riait or ciat is useless for us as an AT as it doesn't allow us to certify anything. Professional Indemnity Insurance is what is needed before signing the dotted line.

Now if we all got ourselves together in one place we could at least bargain role specific PI insurance at a lower price.....

If membership of either riai or ciat means a reduction in PI costs then its worth it, otherwise I don't see the point, unless convinced otherwise.

At the RIAI Bcar yesterday in Cork they said that the minister would amend the roles to include an AT, IF either the RIAI or the ACEI ( engineers ) assessed our qualifications and deemed us acceptable.
What a joke. Turkeys voting for Christmas !!

Tim76

Hi all,

If I'm going for a revised FSC next week due to substantial changes since commencement, is the building now subject to the new regs??