New Building Control Regs

Hairy mellon · 17-09-2014 2:30pm

No6 wrote: »

As a brief aside here in Western Australia all builds over 20k must be by a registered builder unless the owner applies for and gets an owner builder licence which allows them to 'Self Build" in a similar manner to the direct labour form of building. They do have to go through a process and prove thy are competent to do the job they want to and there are courses for to get them competent if required. A similar system in Ireland would at least allow the possibility of self building.

very sensible

kkelliher wrote: »

SCSI have never being any good at promoting their members interest so thats no surprise. I still have to explain to most clients what a QS does.

most representative bodies asleep at the wheel imo

RITwing · 19-09-2014 9:10am

Every dweling which is greater than 40m2 , being extended by any amount - must comply with SI 9

source

martinn123 · 19-09-2014 9:37am

RITwing wrote: »

Every dweling which is greater than 40m2 , being extended by any amount - must comply with SI 9

source

I think you forgot to quote the word, " MAY".

RITwing · 19-09-2014 10:02am

Why be optimistic ?

The politicians who lord it over us DARE to name themselves “legislators”!

It is clear from even this short review that they are not competent to frame legislation or write it or scrutinize it in detail and therefore are not competent to vote it into law.

Thus we are become a nation led at the highest level by fools who don’t know their jobs, who intend to bully and crucify the building professionals into taking on unlimited and unsustainable liability, while their only level of “accountability” is at the ballot box.

For some of them, it should be inside Mountjoy Jail.

* * * * * * * * *

And why are the certifying professions faced with unsustainable liability?

– Because a criminal developer ruined lives with Priory Hall.

– Because a Local Authority disavowed its primary role in ensuring buildings were built in substantial compliance with the building regulations.

– Because a competent and registered Main Contractor was NOT used.

* * * * * * * * *

And what happened in response?

Do we see legislation limiting the actions of ex-convicts in the building industry?

No.

[Why is the governance of business such that an accountant cannot practice with a criminal conviction against him but an ex convict can secure loans for millions and engage in development worth millions more?
I am talking about people with registered judgements against them and known quality control issues arising in previous developments –

Do we see legislation DEMANDING that the local authority shoulders the necessary burden of oversight and regulation, a role that – historically and currently – private capitalist interests have shown they are unable and unwilling to to competently or well?

No.

[And any doubters have only to glance at the roles of the privately owned and privately managed Lending Institutions and Estate Agents in the Banking Collapse of 2008 - with the historically incompetent Light Touch Central Bank Regulation making sure no real oversight occurred]

Do we even have an enforced statutory Register of Builders, with even the most rudimentary assessment of the competence to act in that role?

No.

[The idea that that Builders - who make the lions share of the profits from building work - are only required to self-regulate is a questionable way to address this issue. What does that Registration prove? What assessment of their work is made? Indignant self-builders are now asking the question - "How does a Main Contractor prove his competence anyway?"]

* * * * * * * * *

Instead our “legislators” talked amongst themselves:

“Let’s screw the professionals – it will look like we’re doing something to the electorate.”

In the light of the above article, I should make clear that I did not intend to write:

“To the electorate, it will look like we’re doing something.”

[I intended the dangling participle or clause because the electorate is being royally screwed for the benefit of the developers and main contractors and our lazy and incompetent "legislators" who need their party donations. The new Building Regulations confer no benefit to the Consumer. They just give them a straw man target to sue - the Assigned Certifier - who is just a decoy, behind which any criminal developer or builder - who is not now obliged to BUILD in accordance with the Building Regulations - now safely stands. Of course the "legislators", when their incompetence has run its course, can just head off into the Golden Dawn of a New Position in Europe.]

* * * * * * * * *

No spotlight is turned on these Builders and Developers, no penalty for gross negligence is imposed on them for not ensuring that the building works are compliant or that the fire safety measures are correctly implemented or even that roofs will stay on buildings if the wind blows hard – all of which were issues that actually occurred during the Celtic Tiger years.

Hairy mellon · 19-09-2014 12:32pm

martinn123 wrote: »

I think you forgot to quote the word, " MAY".

"MAYDAY"

RITwing · 19-09-2014 4:12pm

source

To all Architects, Engineers, Chartered Surveyors and fellow Architectural Technologists.

Of S.I.9, Politics and the Game of Junior B Hurling.

To me there are a few things that I think by and large escape the view of the population of Construction Professionals out there who are opposed to S.I. 9!!! These regulations were brought into force by a Department and a Minister who care little to nothing about how we might feel about these regulations or how they affect us/our livelihoods. These regulations were brought into effect for one reason and one reason only – i.e. to remove the responsibility of the Local Authority and foist it squarely onto the Construction professionals. They were looking at potentially being blamed for Priory Hall by the Public...so they made the Construction Industry the fall guys for their slip ups. In the court of Public Opinion it was “unscrupulous Builders” and “incompetent Architects” who were all to blame, and as such it was Builders and Architects who needed tighter regulation. And thus the Minister and Department played the age old political game of "Pass the buck" or in Junior B hurling parlance..."Playing the Man". Now...we as professionals operating in the real world see this as acting irresponsibly, unfairly, unjustly, and with no regard for anyone else but Politicians saving their own skins. But that is the game of politics. That is all you need to know about Politics and Politicians. Avoid fixing the problem. Find somebody else to blame, and make it their problem. Save your Dail seat and keep your votes. That's it. And that is the game we have been dragged into playing here. In the professional world we play Championship Hurling. Its challenging, its fast, its full of skill and daring and generally the best team wins. Why? Because the rules are there to protect everyone, and give everyone the best chance of succeeding if they have the required skills, determination and have a little luck too. Everyone plays to the same set of rules and generally everyone plays fair...and if you don’t you get a free or a penalty against you. If you cheat or blatantly disregard the rules then you get sent off. There are consequences and strict rules that try to give everyone a level playing field, so that the best team with the most skills comes out on top. The best team more than likely wins. But that isn’t the game we are playing here. Oh no. This is Politics. This game is played on a wet Sunday morning in a field in the middle of nowhere. Gentlemen welcome to Junior B hurling! And you may well laugh, but it’s not funny when your shins are skinned and your knuckles are bleeding and you have a black eye....and the referee is waving play on. Because the rules of this game are...you look after your own self first. The referee isn’t interested. He is a Home Town referee and will play to the crowd. A free is only a free if the crowd can see it and they complain. After that it’s a free-for-all. The burly opposition guy standing beside you is a wily old political fox. He knows his best chance of winning the ball is by hurting you first making sure you can’t get to it. There is no skill. No best man wins. It’s nasty, dirty, every man for himself and in politics your own team-mates are just as willing to pull across you as the opposition are. If you want fairness and protection from the referee then I’m sorry...you are playing hurling in the wrong field.

If you want the Department and the Minister to change their minds and act fairly then you are missing the point. That isn’t how this game is played. If you want to play like a gentleman and rely only on your skills to win the ball then you are going home in an Ambulance. If you want the referee to take notice and call a foul then you will be waiting a long long time. We as professionals are too polite. And appealing to the referee to get the other team to play fair doesn’t work. The crowd on the sidelines are the true arbiters here. They are the only people who count. The referee plays to them. They call the fouls. They decide.

Public Opinion. That makes the rules in this game. It might be a blunt instrument and by God is it fickle and contrary and is bound up more in the illusion of fair play than in actual fair play itself. Politics and playing it is illusory. What happens in the shadows, never happened. All that matters is that you hide your dirty play and if you can walk away from a challenge with the ball in your hand then you won, how you got it doesn’t really matter as long as you could disguise any foul play well enough. Architects, Engineers, Chartered Surveyors all writing letters, blogs, signing petitions, having meetings, etc. That is just a bunch of broken up team mates in a huddle moaning at why the referee won’t give them a fair game to play. It doesn’t change the game, it doesn’t affect the opposition and it leaves you wondering why you bothered to turn up in the first place. Your coach is scratching his head and crying on the side lines over the fact the referee is not playing fair. You need somebody to tell you how to at least compete in this game. And here it is. Shake yourself off. Get stuck in. And most of all understand that anything goes, it’s winning by any and all means...and the crowd call the fouls. And a note to all fellow Architectural Technologists out there. We don’t even have a team!! Some guys in the next County over might be willing to join the league, but the Home team don’t like people outside the parish playing on this field!!! So we are the younger brothers showing up with our gear bag and hurley hoping that we can maybe get picked by the bigger boys to sit on their subs bench. Do we really want to be showcasing our undoubtedly silky skills out there on that field??? Because out there we are less than inconsequential to the opposition and our team mates alike.

Construction Professionals need to get out of the little insulated huddle we are in and move away from moaning to each other about how unfair the system is. The system doesn’t care. It’s a dirtier game than we have ever played. We are too polite and being polite is seen as being weak and inconsequential. It’s laughed at and derised by the opposition. The only way this game is won is by making sure the Public start calling the fouls and see the fouls taking place. That is what Politicians and Civil Servants fear most. That means they have to start playing hurling. Playing fair. Remember how the Senior Citizens pulled that off??? Remember the Medical Card debacle??? They knew how to Play Junior B Hurling!!! They understood the rules of the game. They got fouled. They made damn sure the foul was called and seen for what it was. Dirty Play. Politicians couldn’t any longer play the man there. And the court of public opinion was going to be watching closely after that. But that takes us as a body of professionals to get out of our own huddle and get out on the streets to protest this, make the public aware and start hurting the politicians and civil servants who are trying so hard to protect their own skins. Jab your hurley into their ribs for a change. Get off the ground and shake off the muck. Stand up for ourselves. For instance....if as a group of bodies, the RIAI, Engineers Ireland and the Chartered Surveyors directed their members that, as and from a mutually agreed date,(e.g. 1st October) they should flat out refuse to be Assigned Certifiers, refuse to lodge any Commencement Notice under any terms, then the outcry would be massive. Yes it’s dirty. Yes it’s ugly. Yes it’s even playing the man, not the ball. It would grind the system to a halt. No client anywhere could build a house. Yes the backlash would be ugly and Architects, Engineers and Chartered Surveyors would be potentially in the firing line for abuse by the Public. Yes it would even hurt our pockets too. But at least the game would be visible for what it is. Not hurling...just every man for himself. And we don’t want to play that game. Let the Public see the reality of the injustice and how it directly affects them too. Most of them came to see a game of hurling. Show them it’s not what you are being allowed to play. Let the crowd see the blood on your shins and your broken knuckles. Let them call the foul. And get off your knees, stop crying, and start doing it now. Because like every game there is a time limit. We are playing to a clock here and we are running out of time. I feel that if this legislation is not seriously challenged and fought in a very public way with the Public on our side, and done within the next 6 months then we might as well give up now, because the Regulations will be here to stay. RIAI EGM's, drawing up alternatives, bitching to the opposition about how dirty they are WON’T WORK. WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND THIS NOW!!! The Public hold the key. Get everyone involved and point the blame back squarely at the Minister, Government and Civil Service...they won’t stop fouling us unless we do. As Michael Collins best put it, our best weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to be participants in a situation where our collective professional lives are at the whim of a political game of pass the buck. Don't engage. Don't play their game. With every Commencement Notice that we lodge we strengthen their resolve and give them solace that they have won, we are cowed, beaten, and yes we may be giving out, but they aren't losing any votes or any sleep over this. Until Politicians face a reeal threat of lost votes they will happily ignore us all and keep S.I.9 on the statute books.

Hairy mellon · 19-09-2014 4:56pm

spot on- goal scored!

galwaytt · 19-09-2014 5:26pm

RITwing wrote: »

source

Hmmm.

Lovely and all as the wordsmithing is, it's actually part of the problem it itself decries: it's wordsmithing to a closed audience.

And loath and all as I am to admit, the chances of the public getting behind any movement to do anything about S.I.9 is, frankly, beyond microscopic. This is because this is not a mainstream issue. Or certainly not perceived to be one. It is above and beyond the normal sphere of interest of most people - and I mean this in a nice way. Those not buying/selling/extending/building anew remain to all intents and purposes, unaffected.

Let me give you some equally - actually more - onerous issues of greater and wider public import, which affect a much greater audience, and which "we, the public" have similarly failed to challenge:
Health care & medical cards - save the Grey Revolution

NPPR
LPT
Water charges
USC
Pension Levy
Motor tax
Fuel excises

Those items directly affect millions on a daily basis, yet "we" cannot muster enough support to present an effective challenge.

What chance then of them coming to take action on a "peripheral" issue (as they might see it), SI9 ?

So, while you might think we're all inside some of Kumbaya huddle outside site offices around the country, the reality is if you think nothing will happen now - just you wait til we ourselves take our foot off the gas. The instant 'we' do that, it's game over (sic).

...er, discuss ?? :pac:

RITwing · 20-09-2014 9:22am

To simplify -
Hogan and his ministers simply passed the most expedient law from their perspective. Dismissing all the careful knowleable and broad vision commentry lodged during consultation It's true purpose is to protect the state. The leadership of the SCSI , IEI and RIAI played along because they perceived an advantage. Incredibly bad and short sighted leadership all round.

Ordinary citizens are being cheated here and ordinary practising architects, engineers and surveyors have not got a mountain , but a range of moutains to climb to show that.

What can those at the coal face otherwise do now ?

What I think will happen is that when activity recovers from it's ( still current historic ) low then the next DOE minister will have no choice but to make further changes . When many many people realise the extra red tape and expense that will attach to even modest domestic extension there will be a massive negative reaction. And the traditional would be self builder will not just go away. Not many Joe Publics are being confronted yet by SI 9 but in time that will happen.

Another snake in the long grass is the PI industry. They are reactive not pro active. In other words they will not react in a very significant manner untill a cliams pattern arises from SI 9. We may need to wait 3-5 years for that imo.

In the meantime those of us who can see things clearly have to bide our time.

And hope we do not sign a career ending document in the meantime.

sydthebeat · 20-09-2014 3:43pm

Heard yesterday of a client given a figure of €53, 000 for professional services from start to finish for a large rural one off.

DOCARCH · 20-09-2014 7:47pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Heard yesterday of a client given a figure of €53, 000 for professional services from start to finish for a large rural one off.

E53K for what? What professional services?

sydthebeat · 20-09-2014 8:20pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

E53K for what? What professional services?

Design, planning and SI9 requirements.

Charlie-Bravo · 20-09-2014 10:21pm

Was that just an architect's fee for elements in his/her field? If so, what would the extra fees be on QS, project manager, engineer? I am sure there's plenty missing from the €53k which needs to be made up!

sydthebeat · 21-09-2014 9:18am

astrofluff wrote: »

Was that just an architect's fee for elements in his/her field? If so, what would the extra fees be on QS, project manager, engineer? I am sure there's plenty missing from the €53k which needs to be made up!

I've just said what it was for.

And your completely missing the point. The point is that the fees required for si9 compliance have turned into multiples of the original €1k -€3k extra that big Phil had originally put out.

This job of course is not going ahead with that quote.

Charlie-Bravo · 21-09-2014 9:26am

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

DOCARCH · 21-09-2014 10:19am

...must be a big house!

sydthebeat · 21-09-2014 10:30am

astrofluff wrote: »

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

Sincere Apologies, reading through a hazy head !!

sydthebeat · 21-09-2014 10:30am

astrofluff wrote: »

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

Sincere Apologies, reading through a hazy head !!

Queen of Sheebs · 22-09-2014 6:03pm

We're building an extension onto our home. We employed an architect... Cost about €3000 to bring us to the construction drawings. We are trying to register as a self-build as my husband's dad is a retired builder and is offering to do the roof for us. We have a building contractor who is going to do the grounds work, raft, demolition, block work and plastering and finish the site. He may also be supplying the electrician and plumber. He is happy to work with my husband's father. We have an engineer who is doing the structural drawings and has quoted for us to be the assigned certifier for the project. However, he has quoted an additional €500 plus vat for being a "project Supervisor" for all aspects of health and safety on the project. Can anyone please advise where we stand in relation to this?? Fees for the new regulations are getting out of control!!!! Thanks.

DOCARCH · 22-09-2014 6:34pm

Queen of Sheebs wrote: »

....he has quoted an additional €500 plus vat for being a "project Supervisor" for all aspects of health and safety on the project. Can anyone please advise where we stand in relation to this??

This way: http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Construction/homeowners_guidance.pdf

ml100 · 23-09-2014 8:58pm

Don't we have a new DOE minister?, what's his view on si9? has he commented on it yet?

Hairy mellon · 23-09-2014 9:12pm

here is a good post on the extent of "red tape" for a typical house now.

mind-boggling....click on jpeg in post

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/architects-overview-of-regulations-for-a-dwelling/

RORY O CONNOR · 28-09-2014 11:33am

The self builder can appoint themselves as the builder and then sub the work out to contractors. There is this myth that you need to appoint a builder-you don't

If you are appointing yourself the builder you are then the employer of the subcontractor so you will need to provide insurance for your site and be aware of Health and Safety issues, However if you have a good experienced construction professional as your assigned certifier he/she can give you all the advice and support you need for you to take on the role of the builder/employer. It sounds a bit daunting but its not.

.

RORY O CONNOR · 28-09-2014 11:46am

Queen of Sheebs wrote: »

We're building an extension onto our home. We employed an architect... Cost about €3000 to bring us to the construction drawings. We are trying to register as a self-build as my husband's dad is a retired builder and is offering to do the roof for us. We have a building contractor who is going to do the grounds work, raft, demolition, block work and plastering and finish the site. He may also be supplying the electrician and plumber. He is happy to work with my husband's father. We have an engineer who is doing the structural drawings and has quoted for us to be the assigned certifier for the project. However, he has quoted an additional €500 plus vat for being a "project Supervisor" for all aspects of health and safety on the project. Can anyone please advise where we stand in relation to this?? Fees for the new regulations are getting out of control!!!! Thanks.

If your extension is less that 40 square meters you do not need an assigned certifier so you are being ripped off by that engineer. You do not need to register as a self build.

The builder should be taking responsibility to ensure the build is compliant with building current regs. Get it in writing that all works will be compliant with current regs- December 2013 new regs came into place. It is the builders responsibility to work to all Health and safety requirements. Is the engineer going to be there every day to ensure they men are working safely.

Hairy mellon · 28-09-2014 12:03pm

read here- law society take on self-building:

http://www.iaosb.com/law society of ireland - update on building control (amendment) regulations 2014.html

and here attorney general letter seeking clarification (no reply back yet afaik):

http://www.iaosb.com/letter_to_attorney_general,_maire_whelan_sc_from_iaosb_regarding_s.i.9.html

the situation is far from clear and self-builders should be aware of significant risk of invalidation on completion. The Department is making this up as they go along, and critically the Law Society were not party to the formation of SI.9. Beware.

Hairy mellon · 28-09-2014 12:05pm

apologies link doesnt work to iaosb sire for law society letter- heres the bregs blog post on it:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/law-society-response-to-self-builders/

Following on from a complaint to the Attorney General and letter to the Law Society querying the status of self-builders under the new Building Regulations introduced in March 2014, the representative body for self-builders (IAOSB) have received the following response from the the Law Society.

Quote: “…our profession had no role in the policy underlying the regulations or either the process or the forms required…It is clear to us that the understandable wish of people to build houses by direct labour is not reflected in the manner in which the regulations and forms were prepared…The guidelines include a comment that self builders with no experience acting as a builder might have difficulties in getting an architect, engineer or surveyor who is willing to undertake the task of acting as an assigned certifier.”

Letter to IAOSB suggests:

The Law Society were left out and should have been involved
Self-builders have been left out and it’s not the Law Society’s fault
The Law Society confirmed that professionals probably shouldn’t certify self-builds under SI9
The Law Society can’t advise other professions
The Law Society have sent the problem straight back to Department

Hairy mellon · 28-09-2014 12:08pm

it si unclear whether the 40sqm exclusion is cumulative- there have been at least 3 invalidations dur to this interpretation by local authorities.

apparently a clarification is due out shortly on this

here is a post on this also by a SCSI member:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/dangling-participles-and-why-all-extensions-may-now-require-compliance-with-s-i-9-2014/

mods please delete if posting links are inappropriate

The following opinion piece was submitted on 16th September 2014 by Nigel Redmond, a Registered Building Surveyor. It is a follow-up comment on a previous post “ALERT | Owners may need Certifiers on porch extensions?“. Concerns continue to be raised about possible ambiguities in the wording of S.I. 9 and their implications for floor area calculations. Varying interpretations have already arisen between different Building Control Authorities. The writer sought a determination on this issue from the BCMS and a BCA but without success to date.

Why all extensions may now require compliance with S.I.9: 2014

Here is a quote from page 5 of S.I.9: 2014

(2) The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following works and buildings-

(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,

I wish to point out that part (b) lacks complete clarity and can be interpreted in two different ways and possibly three. The issue is the word ‘involving’. It is a ‘dangling participle’. A ‘dangling participle’ modifies the wrong noun.

I give two examples of this:

“I saw the trailer peeking through the window”.

Presumably, this means the speaker was peeking through the window, but the placement of the clause “peeking through the window” makes it sound as though the trailer were doing so. The sentence can be recast as, “Peeking through the window, I saw the trailer.”

Similarly, in “She left the room fuming”, it is possibly the room, rather than “she”, that was fuming. It may be preferable to write “Fuming, she left the room”, to avoid any ambiguity.

In the case of the aforementioned part (b), the participle ‘involving’ could refer to (a) the dwelling, (b) the extension, or (c) both together after construction and it is not immediately obvious that total floor area of 40 square metres refers to one in particular.

It is acknowledged that the most likely intention of S.I.9: 2014, was to refer ‘involving’ to the extension itself, however a simple comma would had make this legally absolute:

i.e. an extension to a dwelling, involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,

or better still

an extension, involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres, to a dwelling.

Part (b) has left the subject implied and Assigned Certifiers are taking for granted they know what it means. This has clearly occurred due to the word ‘involving’, and is caused by the poor writing strategy to this part of the statutory document.

S.I.9: 2014 stands on its own two feet and Assigned Certifiers cannot rely upon the Code of Practice for its LEGAL clarification. Extraordinarily, part (b) has now wrote into Law, that if the dwelling is over 40 square metres, any extension constructed to it, regardless of the extension size, requires compliance with S.I.9: 2014. This beggars belief.

It is also important to point out that the wording to this section changed when amending S.I.80, so there is nowhere to claim it was overlooked. It is what it is.

Assigned Certifiers now must turn to their respective professional bodies for clarification on this matter as well as the BCMS and the Department of the Environment. It must be pointed out there is no retrospective compliance for illegal developments. Therefore, until this matter is clarified, a view could be taken that it is inadvisable for professionals to issue Commencement Notices, supervise and certify any extensions constructed to a 40 square metre plus dwelling house after March 1st 2014.

This now throws any extension planned to a dwelling house into complete disarray until part (b) is legally amended. Amending part (b) would confirm that hundreds of extensions have indeed been constructed since March 1st 2014 illegally. However this clarification can instead be avoided by abandoning S.I.9: 2014.

DOCARCH · 28-09-2014 2:32pm

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

December 2013 new regs came into place. It is the builders responsibility to work to all Health and safety requirements.

What piece of legislation was this? Link please???

RORY O CONNOR · 28-09-2014 2:50pm

Sorry Typo- It was December 2012 that the majority of the current building regs came into place due to revisions or additions-Particularly TDG Part L.

It clearly states on BR SE 9202 which is Engineers Ireland certificate of Compliance form which has been produced in conjunction with the Law society of Ireland and is very similar to the RIAI Certificate for compliance:

It is the responsibility of the Main contractor to ensure that the construction of the works complies with the drawings and specifications and standards of construction required by the building regulations.

Contractually and by Statue the main contractor is obliged to have the required knowledge, skill and expertise in the supply of his services and is obliged to undertake the supply with due care.

DOCARCH · 28-09-2014 2:55pm

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Sorry Typo- It was December 2012 that the majority of the current building regs came into place due to revisions or additions-Particularly TDG Part L.

Not the case...you've just proved my point (from another thread).

Only Part A of the Building Regulations are dated 2012...none of the other parts (B to M) of the Building Regulations.

New Building Control Regs

Comments