Online petition to amend/revoke new building regs for self builds under BC(A)R SI.9

mullingar

Here is a new online petition to appeal the new building regs.

If you believe that the new regs are simply too much and are far too restrictive for self-build homes please sign it and please spread the word.

(I'm not affiliated with it)

RESTORE SELF BUILDS IN IRELAND - REVOKE S.I.9
Ireland is a nation of Self Builders - little homes dot the countryside - they are what make Ireland 'Home' to millions of people - these homes are set to be NO MORE.
Our Forefathers constructed family homes with their bare hands & they fought for our Freedom. Now in 2014 - we, the citizens of Ireland have to fight once more - this time we are fighting for the right to be able to provide a home for our families.
Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I.9 came into force on Saturday, March 1st, 2014. These Regulations, known as S.I.9 prohibit a self builder from constructing their own home - they are even so extreme as to prohibit a self builder from employing their own sub-contractors. All construction of homes and extensions MUST go through a main Building Contractor! (from next year the Builder MUST be taken from the Construction Industry Federation Register - C.I.F is a private Company!)
We petition the Government of Ireland to hear our voice and restore the right for a family to build their own home without severe financial burden. What the Government have done is absurd, unjust and anti-social. They have taken the centuries old tradition of providing a home for one's family from us with a strict regime of building control and forcing us to pay thousands extra in professional fees when there is absolutely no need. We are all for regulation of the building sector but we want to be treated with fairness by setting up an independent building inspectorate.
We would welcome inspections at any stage of the build.
We implore the Government not to punish the self builder for the mistakes of the big developers and building contractors of the past.
Building a home should not be reserved for the privileged few. We have NO OTHER WAY of owning our own family homes, we have enough money for materials and we were going to construct our homes with Blood, Sweat & Tears.
To the Government of Ireland - please listen to the pleas of the people of Ireland and revoke or amend S.I.9.

For further information check out:
Irish Association of Self Builders website (iaosb.com)
or the information site for the S.I.9 (si9.ie)

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/self-build-rights-ireland

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/online-petition-self-build-in-ireland-bcar-si-9/

www.iaosb.com

4Sticks

con1982

I fully support people building their own homes, as a self-builder. However, I find it difficult to accept that an non-construction professional could design and build a house while complying the the building regulations and the construction Safety & Health regulations (PSDP, PSCS and risk assessments).

893bet

Petitions for good causes ran per year =45874

Petitions that resulted in any change= 0

Too late. Too late.

4Sticks

All journeys even the longest begin with a single step 893bet. A petition alone may not change anything.

We have local elections this May. Here is a list of all contact details of all the LAs

Find you LA website and there find all Councillors - eg for Meath

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/DunshaughlinAreaOffice/ContactaDunshaughlinCouncillor/

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/KellsTownCouncilandAreaOffice/ContactaKellsAreaCouncillor/

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/NavanTownCouncilandAreaOffice/ContactaNavanAreaCouncillor/

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/SlaneAreaOffice/ContactaSlaneCouncillor/

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/TrimTownCouncilandAreaOffice/ContactaTrimAreaCouncillor/

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/TownCouncilsandLocalAreaOffices/TrimTownCouncilandAreaOffice/ContactaTrimTownCouncillor/

These nice people will be seeking votes soon in Meath and others like them where you live.

Doing nothing will truly change nothing.

mandy gall

893bet wrote: »

Petitions for good causes ran per year =45874

Petitions that resulted in any change= 0

Too late. Too late.

Just sign the thing - you never know where it may go! Lifes too short 4 negativity.
At a CIF meeting last night - they were looking for recruits for this register (ciri) €738 to join annually.. Imagine you dont even have to be qualified - just 'competent' - what a joke - will never be a credible list.

martinn123

While I have no objection to a petition, and I will put my name to this, can I point out the following.

These Regulations went to Public Consultation at least 2 yrs ago.
They were debated here extensively, and many will remember being encouraged by Moderators to make a submission, which I did, as did many others here.

The Regulations then were debated for a further period before being signed into law this year.
Most of the debate centered on the fact that ''Certifyers'' would have to assume
sole, and total responsibility, for ensuring a house complied with the Reg's.
This was watered down, prior to enactment.

While some mention was made during the debate to ''Self-Builders'' it did not get the same coverage.

So can someone point to the Lobbying of the Minister, or anyone by, isaob.com or anyone else on the Self Building aspect, over the past years.when it might have made an impact

As to the Local Elections, and candidates looking for votes, this is National Legislation, Local Councillors will have no impact, no matter what they say to get your vote.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

As to the Local Elections, and candidates looking for votes, this is National Legislation, Local Councillors will have no impact, no matter what they say to get your vote.

They will be seeking votes to bodies charged with enforcing these regulations. Voters can and should make their views felt - that was the point of the first part of your post - no ?

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

They will be seeking votes to bodies charged with enforcing these regulations. Voters can and should make their views felt - that was the point of the first part of your post - no ?

The enforcement of the Legislation will be carried out by Full Time,Professional Employees of the LA's not Local Councillors.

Lobbying a Councillor on National Legislation is like asking them to influence the Minister of Finance on the Budget.

Let them promise to fix your pot hole in exchange for your vote, not this Legislation.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

Let them promise to fix your pot hole in exchange for your vote, not this Legislation.

We must sadly agree to disagree. We have seen press reports of these people exressing "shock/horror".
Why not ask what do may care to DO about it.

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

We must sadly agree to disagree.

Agreed.

4Sticks wrote:

We have seen press reports of these people exressing "shock/horror".

Ah Yes, a Press release issued in the run up to an Election, hoping to feature in the local paper, where was the Shock, Horror over the past 2 years........clue, there was no Election looming

4Sticks wrote:

Why not ask what do may care to DO about it.

No harm in asking, just don't expect any actual result.

wirehairmax

I have no problem with people building their own house but let's bring a little reality to the table. What has been happening in the self-build sector since time began has been a joke and a shambles. It's been by no means a rosy fairy-tale as some of the romanticists from the iaosb and others would have you believe.
What has really been happening is:
1: Large amounts of money ie mortgages in the amount of hundreds of thousands being spent with little or no accountability. What other walk of life can you spend this amount of money over a year and not have to produce records and accounts to prove that it went to legitimate trades and contractors? Black market labour is rife and bonafida contractors are competing against people who already are guaranteed a few hundred euros before they even get out of bed on a Monday morning. The self-builder will retain an architect/engineer to come out at intervals to inspect and value the work that is done alright but never to ask where and how the money was spent. I know banks and lending institutions are now being a little more diligent but not when it comes to cash payments to trades and as long as it gets done they're happy. I would like to see proper accounts procedures being introduced which can be inspected by revenue, social welfare, mortgage providers so that every cent and payment can be fully accounted for.
2: Health and Safety is being ignored completely on the majority of self-builds. The HSA need to become much more active in inspecting and enforcing health and safety legislation on self-builds. Some of the things you see happening on self- builds is truly frightening and mind- boggling.
3: While there are a few clued-in clever people well capable of building their own houses, in my view and experience there are many more stupid naive people out there who are completely clueless when it comes to how to put a project together and how to deal with sharp and negligent sub-contractors. To these people they were building their dream and saw it as some kind of right and ritual to build their own house. When I was doing BER assessments, I was able to see dozens and dozens of examples of poorly built direct labour houses and extensions. I saw a lot of examples of people who although they were living in "mansions" they were poorly built and finished. The sheer scale of some of these >300m2 houses meant that although they were "built" to budget the materials and workmanship were obviously not to standard or skimped on. Imagine looking into an attic of a 3500 sq ft house only built 2 years ago and only seeing a single layer of insulation rolled between the ceiling joists. I've seen dormers and bay windows leaking and not insulated, cavity insulation missing in places, plaster falling off walls, plastering looking like it was done in the dark by a drunk, collars and ties missing from roofs, chimneys leaking, and many many more examples. Part L compliance is rare rather than common. Undersized heating systems, eg solar panels, poor controls, inadequate insulation, a dependence on fossil fuel heating systems such as oil as the main heat source are common failings of many self-builds. This also points to a failing on the part of the self-builder is only engaging a professional to certify and complete the mortgage drawdown paperwork and they are 99 times out of a 100 chosen by the lowest price and only called to site when money is needed. On the other hand there are many certificates processed without the certifier ever setting foot on site or even leaving the office. I would be glad to see the word "opinion" deleted from memory and consigned to the past as it is the ultimate go-free card to the lazy and negligent certifiers out there. It either complies or it doesn't. Couldn't be made simpler or put in plainer English.

At the very least I think that every self-build should be made retain an independent competent professional, something like a clerk of works, who can be on site at stages to inspect before any work is closed up and that they would have the power and the authority to condemn sub-standard work and materials. Now I know many of you out there say that this should be the job of the Local Authority Building Control Officer but let's face it, LA's are broke and there is an embargo on recruitment in most of them anyway. There is only 1-2 BCO's in most county's so realistically they will not be able to monitor an entire county of self-builds without a panel of recognized inspectors funded by the self-builds. The BCO should retain overall authority with the power to audit inspections and impose sanctions as they see fit.

If the self-builders out there who want to build their own houses agree with the above and agree to come in line with legislation and become accountable for what is effectively a respectable turnover for a small business, I would sign a petition to support them, but until then, I would have to say no.

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

I have no problem with people building their own house but let's bring a little reality to the table. What has been happening in the self-build sector since time began has been a joke and a shambles. It's been by no means a rosy fairy-tale as some of the romanticists from the iaosb and others would have you believe.
What has really been happening is:
1: Large amounts of money ie mortgages in the amount of hundreds of thousands being spent with little or no accountability. What other walk of life can you spend this amount of money over a year and not have to produce records and accounts to prove that it went to legitimate trades and contractors? Black market labour is rife and bonafida contractors are competing against people who already are guaranteed a few hundred euros before they even get out of bed on a Monday morning. The self-builder will retain an architect/engineer to come out at intervals to inspect and value the work that is done alright but never to ask where and how the money was spent. I know banks and lending institutions are now being a little more diligent but not when it comes to cash payments to trades and as long as it gets done they're happy. I would like to see proper accounts procedures being introduced which can be inspected by revenue, social welfare, mortgage providers so that every cent and payment can be fully accounted for.
2: Health and Safety is being ignored completely on the majority of self-builds. The HSA need to become much more active in inspecting and enforcing health and safety legislation on self-builds. Some of the things you see happening on self- builds is truly frightening and mind- boggling.
3: While there are a few clued-in clever people well capable of building their own houses, in my view and experience there are many more stupid naive people out there who are completely clueless when it comes to how to put a project together and how to deal with sharp and negligent sub-contractors. To these people they were building their dream and saw it as some kind of right and ritual to build their own house. When I was doing BER assessments, I was able to see dozens and dozens of examples of poorly built direct labour houses and extensions. I saw a lot of examples of people who although they were living in "mansions" they were poorly built and finished. The sheer scale of some of these >300m2 houses meant that although they were "built" to budget the materials and workmanship were obviously not to standard or skimped on. Imagine looking into an attic of a 3500 sq ft house only built 2 years ago and only seeing a single layer of insulation rolled between the ceiling joists. I've seen dormers and bay windows leaking and not insulated, cavity insulation missing in places, plaster falling off walls, plastering looking like it was done in the dark by a drunk, collars and ties missing from roofs, chimneys leaking, and many many more examples. Part L compliance is rare rather than common. Undersized heating systems, eg solar panels, poor controls, inadequate insulation, a dependence on fossil fuel heating systems such as oil as the main heat source are common failings of many self-builds. This also points to a failing on the part of the self-builder is only engaging a professional to certify and complete the mortgage drawdown paperwork and they are 99 times out of a 100 chosen by the lowest price and only called to site when money is needed. On the other hand there are many certificates processed without the certifier ever setting foot on site or even leaving the office. I would be glad to see the word "opinion" deleted from memory and consigned to the past as it is the ultimate go-free card to the lazy and negligent certifiers out there. It either complies or it doesn't. Couldn't be made simpler or put in plainer English.

If the self-builders out there who want to build their own houses agree with the above and agree to come in line with legislation and become accountable for what is effectively a respective turnover for a small business I would sign a petition to support them, but until then, I would have to say no.

I agree. If you read the petition its calling for an independent inspectorate to inspect these self builds. We will build and adhere to all building regs incl part L! We are under no circumstances condoning poor workmanship or evading inspection.
I'm afraid to say the whole SI9 is about CIF controlling ALL construction in Ireland from 2015 and forever. It's absolute nonsense and I for one will not tolerate it!
I suggest the good Minister and his buddies in the CIF put away the Monopoly Board because now they're playing with real lives.

wirehairmax

What about complying with revenue and h&s law? Are all the self-builders out there willing to produce accounts which are subject to scrutiny by the authorities, and employ health and safety professionals to implement correct procedures and systems?

galwaytt

mandy gall wrote: »

Just sign the thing - you never know where it may go! Lifes too short 4 negativity.
At a CIF meeting last night - they were looking for recruits for this register (ciri) €738 to join annually.. Imagine you dont even have to be qualified - just 'competent' - what a joke - will never be a credible list.

Ha ! - €738 ? That would be a good investment actually - stealing a march on the opposition and all that !

galwaytt

mandy gall wrote: »

I agree. If you read the petition its calling for an independent inspectorate to inspect these self builds. We will build and adhere to all building regs incl part L! We are under no circumstances condoning poor workmanship or evading inspection.
I'm afraid to say the whole SI9 is about CIF controlling ALL construction in Ireland from 2015 and forever. It's absolute nonsense and I for one will not tolerate it!
I suggest the good Minister and his buddies in the CIF put away the Monopoly Board because now they're playing with real lives.

Unless you have already built, or are planning to build a bunch of houses into the future your 'not standing for it' is a bit moot really.


But yes, the SI thing is a money racket - I even had one Architect tell me it was going to go back to the 'good old days' of Arch's looking for a % of the contract value.

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

What about complying with revenue and h&s law? Are all the self-builders out there willing to produce accounts which are subject to scrutiny by the authorities, and employ health and safety professionals to implement correct procedures and systems?

Totally. We are paye workers. We pay our tax, usc, etc..like i keep saying i dont think there is a tax on blood, sweat & tears. All top spec materials will be purchased in the local builders merchants, window & door companies. etc..i presume they are all tax compliant? H & S - hard hats & hugh vis jackets at the ready!
Im so sick of hearing nonsense re self builds. Its like a jealousy from builders - when are they going to realise for most self builds - if we cant do it ourselves - it wont be done at all ie. The house will NEVER exist therefore no need for jealousy!

mandy gall

galwaytt wrote: »

Unless you have already built, or are planning to build a bunch of houses into the future your 'not standing for it' is a bit moot really.


I repeat that im not standing for it - my 5 children might want to build in 20 years time, so im going to fight the SI9 to the death!

martinn123

mandy gall wrote: »

I repeat that im not standing for it - my 5 children might want to build in 20 years time, so im going to fight the SI9 to the death!

While I can admire your spirit, it's a bit like

'' Well Joe, I built this house myself, from my own resources, and I will go to Jail, rather than pay ''Property Tax''

And we have a compliance rate of 93%, and no one in Jail.

Can I ask, did you make a submission when the Legislation was open to Public Consultation.
Did you Lobby, ( if so who? ) for the Two Years it took between publication, and implementation of this Legislation.

mandy gall

martinn123 wrote: »

While I can admire your spirit, it's a bit like

'' Well Joe, I built this house myself, from my own resources, and I will go to Jail, rather than pay ''Property Tax''

And we have a compliance rate of 93%, and no one in Jail.

Can I ask, did you make a submission when the Legislation was open to Public Consultation.
Did you Lobby, ( if so who? ) for the Two Years it took between publication, and implementation of

Public consultation re something as radical and as controversial as the SI9 should have been announced on the front page of every newspaper and on the News. If you can direct me to the press release from the DOE inviting me to these debates i would be most grateful to you. The SI9 was brought in under the radar to the ordinary person like myself. If is unjust and it affects everyone in different ways. I was never given a chance to lobby anyone. But that will not stop me now.

kkelliher

mandy gall wrote: »

Its like a jealousy from builders - when are they going to realise for most self builds - if we cant do it ourselves - it wont be done at all ie. The house will NEVER exist therefore no need for jealousy!

It has absolutly nothing to do with jealousy. Its about protection of a profession. I am sure dentists, doctors and any other regulated profession would not welcome a reg that would allow some people with no qualifications doing the same job as them but with no requirement to be regulated, or trained in what they are doing.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of a piece of legislation you cant in any way believe that it can be right to have two separate systems, one for professional builders and one for self builders.

If you cant afford to build the house in accordance with regs then it will never be built and nor should it as it cant clearly comply.

The issue of the regs must be treated as a whole with all its parts and not just to suit one particular sector as it cant work any other way

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

Can I ask, did you make a submission when the Legislation was open to Public Consultation.
Did you Lobby, ( if so who? ) for the Two Years it took between publication, and implementation of this Legislation.

Can I just point out that lots of individuals made submissions, lots of professional bodies made submissions, and, even lots of semi-state/state funded quangos made submissions...but...much/most of the content of those submissions, and sensible advice, (even from bodies like the Pyrite Panel) were quite simply ignored and the legislation was pushed on and published only 6 weeks before implementation.

The legislation started out completely daft and people sat back thinking common sense would prevail prior to legislation being published...common sense did not prevail and what could have been a great opportunity to overhaul building control (and actually help pretect the consumer) has been wasted.

Mod Hat on Now: Lets keep it clean in here! No mud slinging!!!

martinn123

mandy gall wrote: »

Public consultation re something as radical and as controversial as the SI9 should have been announced on the front page of every newspaper and on the News. If you can direct me to the press release from the DOE inviting me to these debates i would be most grateful to you. The SI9 was brought in under the radar to the ordinary person like myself. If is unjust and it affects everyone in different ways. I was never given a chance to lobby anyone. But that will not stop me now.

Well the discussion started here on this Forum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78140006

on 14/4/12

The link will bring you to the ''Public Consultation'' area of Environ.ie

You may have to search there, for these Reg's, as the page shows Current Consultations, which are ongoing.

As to Newspaper Adverts, I am sure a search of your Local Newspaper will unearth the Ad's you need

mandy gall

kkelliher wrote: »

If you cant afford to build the house in accordance with regs then it will never be built and nor should it as it cant clearly comply.

The issue of the regs must be treated as a whole with all its parts and not just to suit one particular sector as it cant work any other way

You seem to be mis-understading me. The SI9 impose a severe financial burden on self builders. Of course the house will be built according to regulations part L and all! It was always gong to be. Our problem lies with the 'gun to our heads' of your must employ a contractor etc.. Also a self builder may want the enjoyment of constructing their home. The SI9 must be revoked and im not the only one who thinks so.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

Let them promise to fix your pot hole in exchange for your vote, not this Legislation.

You will receive no more than you demand of your elected officials.
Perhaps we should all demand more.I think we here have long ago entered a vicious circle of expecting less and less form politicians and watching as they continue to disappoint even on diminishing expectations.

I do believe that if the issue is heard repeatedly by the candidates the majority members of established political parties that a message will sent to the Minister.
But nothing will affect nothing.

You may not believe so - I accept that.

mandy gall

martinn123 wrote: »

Well the discussion started here on this Forum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78140006

on 14/4/12

The link will bring you to the ''Public Consultation'' area of Environ.ie

You may have to search there, for these Reg's, as the page shows Current Consultations, which are ongoing.

As to Newspaper Adverts, I am sure a search of your Local Newspaper will unearth the Ad's you need

I dont think i would come accross the phrase 'SELF BUILD WILL BE OVER WITH SI9' anywhere on that search as the Minister would be too scared to admit that. Why don't the big boys at the DOE grow a pair and come out and admit self build is over and then we can get on with the fight.

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

You will receive no more than you demand of your elected officials.
Perhaps we should all demand more.I think we here have long ago entered a vicious circle of expecting less and less form politicians and watching as they continue to disappoint even on diminishing expectations.

I do believe that if the issue is heard repeatedly by the candidates the majority members of established political parties that a message will sent to the Minister.
But nothing will affect nothing.

You may not believe so - I accept that.

Sorry, you misunderstood me.

I thing Local Councillors are too low down the pecking order, to influence this in any way.
That's why I referenced the''Pot Hole''. That's about the level they operate at.

They are expressing outrage, because of an Election, to appear in the Local Paper, and maybe issue a Leaflet on the subject.

Now if it Were a General Election, I would agree with your comments in full.

martinn123

mandy gall wrote: »

I dont think i would come accross the phrase 'SELF BUILD WILL BE OVER WITH SI9' anywhere on that search as the Minister would be too scared to admit that. Why don't the big boys at the DOE grow a pair and come out and admit self build is over and then we can get on with the fight.

I think the discussion on ''Self-Build'' started with this post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78632856&postcount=40

To be clear, I am on your side, however I have a feeling it may be too late.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

Sorry, you misunderstood me.

I thing Local Councillors are too low down the pecking order, to influence this in any way.
That's why I referenced the''Pot Hole''. That's about the level they operate at.

They are expressing outrage, because of an Election, to appear in the Local Paper, and maybe issue a Leaflet on the subject.

Now if it Were a General Election, I would agree with your comments in full.

We agree that councilors do not have the power to change the legislation. I do insist that if enough people make clear how angry they are about the legislation to the Councillors then that message will be heard by govt.

As DOCARCH correctly pointed out reasoned arguments have failed / been dismissed and so it seems that the threat of negative political reaction - loss of votes - is all we have left.

If we are arsed at all.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

We agree that councilors do not have the power to change the legislation. I do insist that if enough people make clear how angry they are about the legislation to the Councillors then that message will be heard by govt.

As DOCARCH correctly pointed out reasoned arguments have failed / been dismissed and so it seems that the threat of negative political reaction - loss of votes - is all we have left.

If we are arsed at all.

this is something that will affect people once or twice in their lifetime,on average.

Most people dont even know whats happening, never mind give a boll!x about it.

Its like inheritance tax... it will be seen as an annoying way of the government getting their hands in your pockets again.

kkelliher

mandy gall wrote: »

You seem to be mis-understading me. The SI9 impose a severe financial burden on self builders. Of course the house will be built according to regulations part L and all! It was always gong to be. Our problem lies with the 'gun to our heads' of your must employ a contractor etc.. Also a self builder may want the enjoyment of constructing their home. The SI9 must be revoked and im not the only one who thinks so.

Sorry but to be clear I dont think I am mis understanding you. The issue as I see it (and to be clear I am unaffected either way so it really does not impact on my business), is that irrespective of what system they put in place it will have to be a one size fits all in that all sectors (professional and self build) will have to follow the one path and its difficult to see how this can be done given you have on one side professional builders and on the other people with little or no training in the industry at all.

There is no given right to be able to BUILD your own home. Most people simply dont have a choice out of planning stupidity and inequality (another day another thread). There is a clear need to regulate the sector given the standard of building (which is far worse in reality than most people will know) that was carried out in the last 10 years and therefore it keeps going back to the same issue that it is impossible to see how a system can be introduced to keep self builders and the general building profession happy.

mandy gall

kkelliher wrote: »

It has absolutly nothing to do with jealousy. Its about protection of a profession. I am sure dentists, doctors and any other regulated profession would not welcome a reg that would allow some people with no qualifications doing the same job as them but with no requirement to be regulated, or trained in what they are doing.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of a piece of legislation you cant in any way believe that it can be right to have two separate systems, one for professional builders and one for self builders. QUOTE]

The regs MUST include all sectors. You are implying that self builders are clueless regarding construction, you must not judge, you must base everything on fact. Seeing as you have mentioned 'qualification' above i would like to point out a fact that Builders are not qualified in anything, only tradesmen are.
You are correct in saying we need one set of regs but i really believe SI9 are not those.

kkelliher

mandy gall wrote: »

The regs MUST include all sectors. You are implying that self builders are clueless regarding construction, you must not judge, you must base everything on fact. Seeing as you have mentioned 'qualification' above i would like to point out a fact that Builders are not qualified in anything, only tradesmen are.
You are correct in saying we need one set of regs but i really believe SI9 are not those.

I am implying that Self Builders in the main are not qualified and or experienced to run, manage and control the construction of a building. If they generally are well I guess we could do away with alot of college courses (and 4 years of my life). I have at no stage said they were clueless and nor have I implied such.

I can factually stated without hesitation that my envolvement in at least 20 self build properties in the last 5 years confirm to me without question that "self builders" are not adequatly trained, or experienced to carry out this role. Pasion, dedication, time, blood, sweat, tears and desire does not constitiute training and experience. In respect to builders I agree alot may not have any qualifications, but then the vast majority will be trained in a trade and or will have vast site experience. It is fully accepted that all builders need to continue to educate in terms of the new and progressing forms of building.

kkelliher

mandy gall wrote: »

You are correct in saying we need one set of regs but i really believe SI9 are not those.

This goes to the heart of the issue. I fail to see how anyone believes you can have a system to suit both sides ie self builders and general builders without one side having to give something extra which at present is self builders having to employ a builder and professional certification.

As I stated I am neither for or against the present situation as I dont have any direct stake in it, but I have yet to see any real alternative proposed by any side that makes sence.

mandy gall

kkelliher wrote: »

This goes to the heart of the issue. I fail to see how anyone believes you can have a system to suit both sides ie self builders and general builders without one side having to give something extra which at present is self builders having to employ a builder and professional certification.

As I stated I am neither for or against the present situation as I dont have any direct stake in it, but I have yet to see any real alternative proposed by any side that makes sence.

Well i hope you understand that we do have a direct stake in this present situation and these regs prohibit self build and i disagree with you re: the right to build a home. I truly believe that building a home should not be reserved for a privileged few. We all have a right to own a home. The SI9 place a restriction on that right. How many men are going to be depressed (or God forbid suicidal) knowing they will never ever be able to own a home. It is a real worry. Not every self builder would be 'competent' but then again not every builder is 'competent' either. That is why a register of tradespeople available at each local authority would be a more credible system, a register of people who actually can prove they are qualified.

sydthebeat

mandy gall wrote: »

Well i hope you understand that we do have a direct stake in this present situation and these regs prohibit self build and i disagree with you re: the right to build a home. I truly believe that building a home should not be reserved for a privileged few. We all have a right to own a home. The SI9 place a restriction on that right. How many men are going to be depressed (or God forbid suicidal) knowing they will never ever be able to own a home. It is a real worry. Not every self builder would be 'competent' but then again not every builder is 'competent' either. That is why a register of tradespeople available at each local authority would be a more credible system, a register of people who actually can prove they are qualified.

ah now lets be a little less hyperbolic (and bring suicide into it is totally over the top)

SI 9 does NOT remove a right to own your own home so please clarify what you mean.
nor does it make building a home the reserve of the privileged.

There is NOTHING in the regulations stopping anyone from working and getting their hands dirty on their own build.
It simply says that if you want to you must work under the supervision of a proper competent person.
It places a standard on the constructors of the a home, which, its hard to argue, is a bad thing.

I do agree that in the absence of a register for "qualified" builders (ie third level graduated from a building contracting / project management course), its foundation-less.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

There is NOTHING in the regulations stopping anyone from working and getting their hands dirty on their own build.
It simply says that if you want to you must work under the supervision of a proper competent person.
It places a standard on the constructors of the a home, which, its hard to argue, is a bad thing.

I guess we need perhaps to tease out exactly what the Self Builder wants to do.
To ''Project manage'' to purchase the materials, to negotiate prices with the various trades, and to co-ordinate activity.

rather than pay the above PLUS a margin to a Contractor who will do the same tasks.

Few unless they are qualified will want to lay blocks, plaster walls or lay electric cables.

So the saving in terms of the Contractors margin is the savings, I think, Mandy is referring to as putting the project out of financial reach.

So if the Certfyer is willing to work, close, in advising the Technical Issues on the build, and the Owner can carry out the tasks as above, ensuring the house meets Reg's, then the only issue is the signature on the Builders Cert which is still in contention.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

I guess we need perhaps to tease out exactly what the Self Builder wants to do.
To ''Project manage'' to purchase the materials, to negotiate prices with the various trades, and to co-ordinate activity.

rather than pay the above PLUS a margin to a Contractor who will do the same tasks.

Few unless they are qualified will want to lay blocks, plaster walls or lay electric cables.

So the saving in terms of the Contractors margin is the savings, I think, Mandy is referring to as putting the project out of financial reach.

So if the Certfyer is willing to work, close, in advising the Technical Issues on the build, and the Owner can carry out the tasks as above, ensuring the house meets Reg's, then the only issue is the signature on the Builders Cert which is still in contention.

its actually simple

It all comes down to responsibility.

Who should be responsible for compliance with building regulations?
A novice self builder who is learning a hell of a lot 'on the job' or a competent builder supervising him/her?

The builder doesnt have to even do any work, but they MUST supervise the on site trades.

Its this supervision and on site instruction that provides the responsibility.

The main difference between this responsibility and the assigned certifiers responsibility is because the builder is required to be on site to supervise, or to ensure a competent person working uinder them, is on site to supervise.

An assigned certifier simply cannot be on site to supervise all the time.
Even as the regs currently are, they are required to 'inspect' at a frequency commensurate to the degree of difficulty of the build.

mandy gall

These regs PROHIBIT self build. Self build is gone now. You must employ a contractor, certifier, supervisor etc.. this is the opposite to what a self build is. SI9 have removed our right to own a home by forcing us to do the above. Costing double what we can afford to do. If you heard Morning Ireland on Friday, Feb. 28 there was a very, very depressed carpenter talking about these regs and how they will affect him and his family. You cant tell me im being OTT re suicide. These issues are actually affecting us - real families - right now. I would ask you not to be so flippant about such serious topics.
All construction workers who can prove their qualifications are welcome to register on Mandy's List!

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

its actually simple

It all comes down to responsibility.

Who should be responsible for compliance with building regulations?
A novice self builder who is learning a hell of a lot 'on the job' or a competent builder supervising him/her?

The builder doesnt have to even do any work, but they MUST supervise the on site trades.

Its this supervision and on site instruction that provides the responsibility.

Agreed, however unless it's a Major Building Contractor, who employs all the trades ''in house'' what Contractor has the competency to supervise, Electrician, Plumber, Plasterer, Blocklayer, etc. etc. and state with certainty their work is in line with Reg's
What actually happens is that the work is ''subbed out'' to trusted Trades, and the Contractor relies on their ability to do the work.
The Self-Builder wants to do this as well.

The main difference between this responsibility and the assigned certifiers responsibility is because the builder is required to be on site to supervise, or to ensure a competent person working uinder them, is on site to supervise.

An assigned certifier simply cannot be on site to supervise all the time.
Even as the regs currently are, they are required to 'inspect' at a frequency commensurate to the degree of difficulty of the build.

Again agreed, maybe the assigned certifyer needs to attend more often, and get paid, to keep an eye on Technicial Issues, which he is qualified to do.

The responsibility can be shared.

kkelliher

mandy gall wrote: »

Well i hope you understand that we do have a direct stake in this present situation and these regs prohibit self build and i disagree with you re: the right to build a home. I truly believe that building a home should not be reserved for a privileged few. We all have a right to own a home. The SI9 place a restriction on that right. How many men are going to be depressed (or God forbid suicidal) knowing they will never ever be able to own a home. It is a real worry. Not every self builder would be 'competent' but then again not every builder is 'competent' either. That is why a register of tradespeople available at each local authority would be a more credible system, a register of people who actually can prove they are qualified.

Having a right to own a home is not the same as having a right to build a home. In most parts of Ireland it is still cheaper to buy a home than build so this right is not effected by the regulations.

you may be in a position to build at present as you have planning but did you get involved with the many people in wicklow, kildare and meath a few years ago who where trying to get people to assist in objection to the local needs section of the planning and development act? There is always a law that effects one section of society and they will shout loudest and in this case this is your section.

In respect to a register no matter what you bring in there will be good and bad on it. All current registers are the same. You will need to root out the bad by having an assessment system of the register on an ongoing basis and in time it should wash out the bad but this will cost and we will all have to pay.

mandy gall

Correct right now it's my turn to shout. Should i not make a stand? I will tell my children when they are older and will never be able to afford to build that at least we tried. Life is not worth living if we keep quiet when we know something is wrong and by God SI9 are wrong.

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

Agreed, however unless it's a Major Building Contractor, who employs all the trades ''in house'' what Contractor has the competency to supervise, Electrician, Plumber, Plasterer, Blocklayer, etc. etc. and state with certainty their work is in line with Reg's

Well...actually...under the new regs it is the building contractors legal responsibility to supervise the work, all of the work, and ensure that the works are constructed in accordance with the building regulations.

The assigned certifiers responsibility is to inspect the works, at predetermined stages, outined before the work commences and then confirm, when the works are complete, that they have carried out those inspections.

Simple!

martinn123

DOCARCH wrote: »

Well...actually...under the new regs it is the building contractors legal responsibility to supervise the work, all of the work, and ensure that the works are constructed in accordance with the building regulations.

The assigned certifiers responsibility is to inspect the works, at predetermined stages, outined before the work commences and then confirm, when the works are complete, that they have carried out those inspections.

Simple!

I think you left out a bit, do they not have to ''Certify'' that the works, comply with the Reg's as well??

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

I think you left out a bit, do they not have to ''Certify'' that the works, comply with the Reg's as well??

Who...the builder or the assigned certifier?

The answer is both.

Just to note that a requirement for professional indemnity insurance, for building contractors, is also coming down the tracks!

sydthebeat

mandy gall wrote: »

Correct right now it's my turn to shout. Should i not make a stand? I will tell my children when they are older and will never be able to afford to build that at least we tried. Life is not worth living if we keep quiet when we know something is wrong and by God SI9 are wrong.

you will always be view with suspicion if you use this argument... you will be accused of trying to do something "on the cheap"

why not try to argue for a state exam to be included on the CIRI register instead and then you can prove that your husband is competent to build?

4Sticks

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just to note that a requirement for professional indemnity insurance, for building contractors, is also coming down the tracks!

there you go Martin123 - extra !



.... only joking

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

...what Contractor has the competency to supervise...

That's partly the point of these regulations. That has to change. The contractor has to get competent or get somebody competent who can supervise! That is the contractors responsibility.

Responsibility under SI 9 has not been just thrown (alone) on to the assigned certifiers lap.

I hope you didn't stop reading after SI 80 2013?

mandy gall

Can ye sign the petition please even if ye don't want to

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

Can ye sign the petition please even if ye don't want to

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

there you go Martin123 - extra !



.... only joking

I would be happy to pay for this, if only to stop you guys complaining that you are the only ones holding it.