New Building Control Regs

Hairy mellon

agreed.

however developers won't care- they have just boxed off SI.9 costs

get in professionals to do planning and DC only (many will do for free)

€2k all in- everyone happy.

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

agreed.

however developers won't care- they have just boxed off SI.9 costs

get in professionals to do planning and DC only (many will do for free)

€2k all in- everyone happy.

lets be clear, that figure of €2000 came from a quotation thats was "€2000 per house for a seven unit development".... so in reality €14,000 for 7 identical houses, identical inspection frequencies, idenitical foundations, identical materials and specifications.... and identicial completion certs. This is also a "trial" run by HOMEBOND with a builder they have a long standing relationship and knowledge of. So its in all likelyhood its a reduced quote.

what this isnt is panacea for self builders or one off clients.

Strolling Bones

sydthebeat wrote: »

what this isnt is panacea for self builders or one off clients.

But it sets a floor. A very deep sub teranean floor for fees.

Hairy mellon

Strolling Bones wrote: »

But it sets a floor. A very deep sub teranean floor for fees.

yes it does.

sydthebeat

Strolling Bones wrote: »

But it sets a floor. A very deep sub teranean floor for fees.

a floor of €14,000?

because comparing like with like thats what they have quoted......

Strolling Bones

Being very cynical now...

Suppose you are an architect or engineer trying to keep afloat in this still depressed indistry ( pay no attention to the lies in mainstream media about that )

Poverty is a most excellent defence - I have seen that to be true with my own eyes.
So play the game as set by Hogans rules.
€2K per house 7 visits - fine. Give the market what it wants.
Don't over insure yourself. Solicitors will not chase no money. In fact they are duty bound not to.
Put the huose in the wifes name.

Hope that if something goes wrong your clients do not have the resources to mount legal action.
And wait for the - I belive anyway - inevitable collapse of SI 9 as the PI industry simply refuse to particpate.

For truly it is the pockets of the PI provider who is most at risk here - not his clients.

Strolling Bones

sydthebeat wrote: »

a floor of €14,000?

because comparing like with like thats what they have quoted......

I beleive cetifiers will be baited over and over with €2k per house now. Like with the BER fees before LCD will win out.

Hairy mellon

this system favours drive-by certifiers

you will only need design and assigned cert at end, along with builders cert.

no requirement for PI....

Hairy mellon

remember, BCMS are suggesting 7 inspections. Forget that they have noted sound tests to be completed before envelope and roof on, or part M signed off when rising walls are going on....

BryanF

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,41037,en.htm

'Plans' for a review of si9 for domestic projects - still all very vague..

paul2015

HThe review will also consider the impact of the 2014 regulations on owners and occupiers of buildings in relation to issues such as public safety, accessibility, energy efficiency, and good building practice. Submissions can be made by May 15th. The email address is in the Irish times article

Power in numbers . I urge everyone who is opposed to this act to make a submission

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,41037,en.htm

'Plans' for a review of si9 for domestic projects - still all very vague..

Farcical! :mad: DoE does not have a clue about the reality of what they have asked people acting as DC/AC to do/undertake.

Drift

Theyt expect 5 site visits to be enough!

1. Formation Stage
2. Foundation Stgae
3. Ground Floor Stage
4. Roof Structure Stage
5. Completion

Some interesting inspection techniques will be required if one is expected to examine:

• The hardcore and floor insulation in the same visit!
• Wall ties and wall insulation in the same visit!
• All the sewers and effluent items when only the ground floor is complete!
• etc., etc., etc.

I assume this list was written by someone who once saw a house being built as the drove by on their way to the office! Clearly not written by anyone who has supervised or inspected a house under construction.

It seems someone just decided 5 visits first and then wrote a list of things that could be seen at each visit to make it match. No thought at all to what would happen if said item had an issue or problem. If, for example, at inspection visit number 3, I discover a problem with the Radon Barrier (ignoring the obvious question about how it could still be seen at this stage) in the floor/sub-floor how could it be corrected when the building is already half built on top of it?!

The cost calculations are too ridiculous to even discuss. 4 hours for correlation of certificates!!!! 8 hours for design and construction drawings!!

Good to see they expect us all to make €55k a year though! :rolleyes:

Strolling Bones

They understand.
They don't care.
The State is saved.
The citizens can go fcuk.

DOCARCH

Drift wrote: »

Some interesting inspection techniques will be required if one is expected to examine.

Indeed! :rolleyes:

Take 1 of the 5 inspections suggested:

a) Rising walls (external and internal)
b) DPC
c) Hardcore
d) Under floor services
e) Radon sump/venting pipe
f) DPM or Radon Barrier (incl. seals)
g) Ventilated sub‐floor (if any)
h) Floor Insulation – thickness/ type
i) Floor structure.

Whoever wrote that, and suggested that all that could be inspected in one go, does not have a clue!

Or...they assume ACs have X-ray vision?

I'd love to know how you...inspect under floor services...inspect hardcore...inspect the radon barrier...inspect the floor insulation...inspect the floor structure...all in one visit/inspection? The mind boggles!

The reality of that one suggested inspection, is five separate inspections! From that suggested inspection plan, probably a min. of 15 visits are probably what is actually, in reality, required!

Now the DoE have put down a marker, 13 months after BCAR, of what they expect what needs to be inspected, the reality is that costs associated with the role of AC will actually rise, when ACs, who have been to date charging relatively small fees, actually realise what they should be doing!

DOCARCH

The DoE estimate of hours is also woefully underdone!

8 hours to prepare 'design' drawings to show compliance with the regulations???

What about all the calculations and documentation to demonstrate compliance?

Where have they gone? Drawings alone cannot show compliance with all the Building Regulations!

Assumption that ACs have an 'assistant' is also fantasy! The majority of professionals in this country, especially those who act as AC for domestic work, would be sole practitioners.

Drift

To summarise the proposals for winning votes in the forthcoming election addressing the costs partaining to one off houses:

1. Remove single houses from the requirement to obtain the SI9 the certificates.
2. Allow additional people to provide AC Certifier services to allow increased competition.
3. Produce additional guidance. (i.e. add a samplle inspection plan to the exisitng code of practice)
4. Adjust the current 40 square metre threshold for extensions.


I have so many thoughts I don't know where to start. I guess I'll prepare a submission but it will take a lot of time and effort and I fear it might be pointless.

DOCARCH

Drift wrote: »

I have so many thoughts I don't know where to start. I guess I'll prepare a submission.

Me too!

The simple solution...

I agree with Design Certification...retain that and have the 'designer' confirm/certify, on a statutory/legal basis, that their design complies with the Building Regulations

Then, put builders on the same footing as the 'designer' and have them confirm/certify, on a statutory/legal basis, the their building is built wholly in accordance with the design and therfore complies with the Building Regulations

If the design is wrong...designer is at fault. If the building is wrong...builder is at fault.

Everybody should take responsibility for their own work!

'Designers', after all, are individual members of the public who have professional indemnity insurance...and...when it comes to signing off on the building/construction - bearing in mind they do not actually carry out the building/construction - are not allowed to hide behind the mask of a limited company!

That is completely unjust! What the government have done is simply pass a function of sate on to a private individual.

Builders are individual members of the public who are allowed to hide behind the mask of a limited company. Builders are the ones who do actually carry out the building/construction. They should carry professional indemnity insurance, as an individual, and take responsibility for their own work.

The current situation is that it is akin to a theatre nurse, taking responsibility, and liability, for the work of the surgeon. However, that's probably better than building as at least the theatre nurse is likely to be there for the duration of the surgery!

Biggest problem is that the CIF is a bigger body/lobby group probably than all the three professional bodies combined (RIAI, SCSI & IEI).

Strolling Bones

DOCARCH wrote: »

Biggest problem is

No one outside the design professions is interested enough to care unless and untill their own lives are directly impacted and I fear that we will sooner rather than later get the tragedy we are over due. I hope to be wrong about that of course. But with approx 1 in 3 of our housing stock being recently built ( i.e. last 10-15 years) under our lax enforcement arrangements I fear the odds are shortening.

Priory Hall evacuated folks before a fire , in Newbridge people escaped in time. It took the deaths of 38 young people in 1981 in the Stardust fire to force the states hand to provide building regulations legislation. (Only 9 years later mind you ....)

In some sad place we will have a tragedy visited upon us before "the concensus" will be that we need effective enforcement of the 1990 Building Control Act provisions.

Strolling Bones

Architects could do worse than follow the lead taken by Teachers.


They refuse to co operate with changes, not because the changes affect them , their employment conditions , workload or anything like that. Even when they strike for more pay they only do so for the sake of the students.

So architects should refuse en masse to implement the new regs. For the sake of all homeowners. Beacuse when they complain about how the regs are affecting architects NO ONE CARES.

Drift

Unfortunately if a tragedy does happen the government will point to SI9 and say that this will prevent a similar tragedy from happening in a new build.

Strolling Bones

and if people accept that....

Drift

I don't think there's any question of "if".

I think they will.

This legislation was specifically written for the purpose of removing any responsibility from the door step of the department and the local authorities and assigning it someone else and it does that quite nicely.

It's tied up in a neat little bow because if, god forbid, something awful does happen the department can point to this new legislation and say that it simultaneously holds the professionals responsible for the quality of construction and gives them the power "because they are the experts" to enforce good building practice.

The professionals, of course, know that this is not the case at all but to joe public and joe media it seems to be ideal.

Strolling Bones

We are aligned

Strolling Bones wrote: »

No one outside the design professions is interested enough to care

BryanF

Home builders want a house built to building regulations.
The government ( & DOE) through legislation removed themselves and their building control authorities (actual contractor/ self-builder supervision) from any liability.
Designers/professionals are (due to current legislation) completely responsible for building regulation compliance. They need to check everything. This has some economies of scale, the shock is arguably worse felt on the domestic project, which is certainly suffering from the increased associated costs, leading to this si9 Amendment.

Who else can take on the responsiblity of complying with regulations on site, every detail/ material/system installed? To reduce the designers visits/checking requirements - for example, Will a domestic electrician/ plumber/ rebar fixer/ window installer carry PI indemnity and issue an ancillary certificate taking responsiblity/liability for their work?

I empathise withe home-builders/self-builders - what liability will they take on, perhaps in the form of insurance for the first 10 years?

The amendments 'schedule of visits' is not practical to confirm/ certify/ accept liability - but the costings in this amendment suggest an extremely 'light touch' approach, by the designer/certifier.

Will this amendment reduce home builders costs?
Will the insurers accept this or raise there PI cover?
Will professionals find themselves doing more design/supervision/ administration (=costs) to ensure compliance?
Will the costs in another year be similar to now, perhaps after the next election the next government will sort this out?
Will an increase in those elgible to certify find it easy to re-enter the market, considering they were ostracised/excluded a year ago?
Will their clients come back to them now?
What impact has this had on their reputation?
Has anyone put a cost on Mr Hogans si9 legislation?

Will this amendment, reduce the costs of domestic building?

BryanF

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kelly-orders-review-of-building-regulations-1.2163301?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it



'Introduced to end self certification' :
No there is still essentially a situation where the developer pays for certification

'Since the regs were introduced more than 6000 homes have been built'
Is that not planning permissions?

'4options':
'Advisory instead of Mandatory ' : so you only/ sort of / might bother complying???
'Boarden the pool..increase competition.. Reduce prices' : but same Liability?
'Guidance on maximum fees... Upto 3800 'max' + 2200.. If compliace issues' : brilliant this 'guidance' on 'max' fees!!!
'Exemptions' : I'm building a house and don't want to pay for anyone to ensure I comply with building regs, may I be exempt please...

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

'Guidance on maximum fees... Upto 3800 'max'.

I think the whole thing, this proposed review, is a little smoke and mirrors!

I have now read all the consultation documents issued by the DECLG on Thursday.

That figure of E 3,800.00 that the DECLG suggests, for the role of AC, is based on the AC having a fully certified design available, based on standard construction, based on a competent builder carrying out the works, and, based on 5 site visits/inspections. I will come back to this!

There is no mention anywhere of the role of Design Certifier (DC) and associated costs? The Design Certifier is now the missing person in BCAR!

In the past, your typical self builder (note, some, but not all), got the local draughtsman, or woodwork/tech drawing teacher or guard (it has happened!), to draw up their house and get planning permission...and with those drawings in hand, went off and built their house, direct labour.

Now, under BCAR, you have to have a Design Certifier - either a registered architect, chartered engineer or building surveyor who not only has to sign off on the design, but as per the Design Certificate, signs off/certifies that they were involved in the preparation of the design drawings/documentation.

The self builder now must have a set of drawings...typically construction drawings...and calculations/documentation demonstrating how the design complies with the Building Regulations. The aspect alone, has its own significant cost. This is not addressed/mentioned in the consultation documents issued by the DECLG?

The biggest cost issue the DECLG has not mentioned, for the self-builder, and not mentioned for review, is that the BCAR will still prohibit the direct labour route for building. In reality, for the self builder, this is where the bulk of the additional cost is, the fact that anybody wanting to build a house must use a main (CIRI registered) building contractor. The difference between the main contractor route vs. direct labour could be E40K for a typical one off house?

The BCAR review by the DECLG will not tackle this aspect of cost!

The sensationalist (past) reports in the media that AC's are charging E50K/E60K for the role is just pure spin from the DECLG, and an attack on professionals, the easy target!

It is quite plausible that a self builder who was going to builder their house, direct labour...and then confronted by BCAR...would face a hike of an additional E50K...this would likely be the combined cost of now having to appoint a main contractor and appoint a DC and AC.

Why don't the DECLG suggest putting a cap on building costs? They wouldn't dare!!!

Back to that figure of E 3,800.00 that the DECLG suggests, for the role of AC (again note, based on the AC having a fully certified design available). The flaw in the DECLG calculation for AC fees is that it is based on 5 site visits/inspections.

In conjunction, the DECLG have also published a sample inspection plan, of what DECLG would expect needs to be inspected. I would suggest this is a marker for the AC! If the AC inspects what is on the sample inspection plan, they could/would be deemed to have carried out their duty as AC. If the AC does not carry out inspections of what is on the sample inspection plan, they could/would be deemed not to have carried out their duty.

The huge flaw in the DECLG calculation for AC fees is that what is on the sample inspection plan...simply and physically cannot be inspected on 5 site visits/inspections.

I am going to do my own exercise on the sample inspection plan, but, I have already concluded (conservatively) that it is a minimum of 10 site visits/inspections would be required to adhere to the sample inspection plan, and, bear in mind that is for 'standard construction'! Anything off standard will also need inspection, in addition...e.g. no mention of structural steel in the sample inspection plan!

That is why I believe the E 3,800.00 figure that the DECLG suggests is simply fantasy!

Drift

10 visits minimum, based on everything going exactly to plan is what we are seeing too.

Of course, in practice, no build ever goes EXACTLY to plan so 12-15 visits is probably a more realistic minimum for a totally "standard" house.*

*N.B.: No house is totally standard!

MairtinM

I don't see what the problem is with a Self Builder ( not qualified..but can do the job, building his own Home then getting a QS out to pass all the stages....I am currently thinking about buying a plot of land in Donegal which has a stone cottage on site my intentions are to knock down and replace with a donegal cottage, nothing big or fancy just a smallish 3 bedroom.....having read through this thread i am in 2 minds what to do? as it all is sounding so complicated with the amount of people/fees involved and regulations you have to pass before getting planning permission. I can do all myself with the exceptions of Electrical and plumbing works......but the whole process is sounding very daunting.....thinking should just buy a house/bungalow already built.....but where is the Fun! in that.

Chisler2

Drift wrote: »

I don't think there's any question of "if".

I think they will.

This legislation was specifically written for the purpose of removing any responsibility from the door step of the department and the local authorities and assigning it someone else and it does that quite nicely.

It's tied up in a neat little bow because if, god forbid, something awful does happen the department can point to this new legislation and say that it simultaneously holds the professionals responsible for the quality of construction and gives them the power "because they are the experts" to enforce good building practice.

The professionals, of course, know that this is not the case at all but to joe public and joe media it seems to be ideal.

So -hand it back to "them". In this case, the "they" is responsibility of the instruments of public administration and public health and safety.

.........or, alternatively, everyone in the construction-industry can (a) just go on hand-wringing or (b) just keep "blaming the builder". Yech!