New Building Control Regs

Gumbo

MairtinM wrote: »

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.

A QS cannot act as Assigned Certifier.

Poor Uncle Tom

MairtinM wrote: »

not qualified..but can do the job,

In your opinion, who determines which unqualified person can do which job exactly? and who would be willing to certify that unqualified person's work? for the sake of this exercise, how would you determine liability if something were to be done wrong by this unqualified person?

MairtinM wrote: »

then getting a QS out to pass all the stages....

As pointed out above, a QS can't act as an Assigned Certifier.

MairtinM wrote: »

I can do all myself with the exceptions of Electrical and plumbing works.....

Can you get indemnity insurance for your build to back that statement up? or is an Assigned Certifier meant to accept that statement at face value?

MairtinM wrote: »

but where is the Fun! in that.

It's all fun and games until someone spills their milk......

RORY O CONNOR

An issue being completely ignored is development levies. I know of a couple who have a site and a budget of €120K to self build a new house.
They were about to put in a planning application and discovered the council concerned wants €12000 in development levies from them. So now they have decided that they can't afford to self build at the moment. The idea that its the professionals driving up building costs is a bit disingenuous!

Strolling Bones

MairtinM wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is with a Self Builder ( not qualified..but can do the job,

Here you go - from the building regs

2.5 To ensure a proper standard of workmanship, it is essential that persons are competent, possessing sufficient training, experience and knowledge appropriate to the nature of the work he or she is required to perform

RORY O CONNOR

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Here you go - from the building regs

Given that many builders employ subbies to do the work for them I don't see the difference between a self builder and a so called builder. In fact many self builders tend to be more serious about quality and workmanship than your average builder as it is in their best interests to be so!

Strolling Bones

Up untill now and for small while longer - maybe. But over time as the CIRI register becomes more and more established the AC would be left in an impossible situation in entartaining a novice self builder.

galwaytt

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Up untill now and for small while longer - maybe. But over time as the CIRI register becomes more and more established the AC would be left in an impossible situation in entartaining a novice self builder.

..two people in the last week I've met, with planning, have never heard of DC/AC or SI9, despite using architects to get them this far.

One, yesterday, told me he was doing the blocklaying himself and when I mention AC he said his plasterer has 'all the certs'. Plasterer ??

Where on earth have they been hiding.

DOCARCH

galwaytt wrote: »

Where on earth have they been hiding.

I wouldn't blame Joe Public!

You started another thread on the BCAR public consultation. One of my headings in my submission is 'Lack of Information'. It is astounding how little public information the DECLG has put out there....don't tell people about the daft legislation seems to be the order of the day! Most people don't have a clue unless somebody tells them!

I have heard a number of stories now where some people have been led down the garden path, where they have engaged 'architects' (or what they think is an 'architect'...i.e. a non-registered one) and get to/through planning stage, with no metion of BCAR, and then they are left high and dry as their 'architect' cannot act as DC/AC.

Strolling Bones

If only the local authorities would police building regs....

How silly of me to think that.

Poor Uncle Tom

DOCARCH wrote: »

I have heard a number of stories now where some people have been led down the garden path, where they have engaged 'architects' (or what they think is an 'architect'...i.e. a non-registered one) and get to/through planning stage, with no metion of BCAR, and then they are left high and dry as their 'architect' cannot act as DC/AC.

While I understand fully what you are saying, it is not obligatory for a planning agent to be able to act as DC/AC. While it might be nice for someone to get a 'one stop shop' type of service, it is not obligatory, necessary or in some cases desirable to be able to do this.

A far more important issue here which I feel is being ignored is that there is no emphasis on the ability of the building designer before planning stage where there is a significant expense and once planning permission is obtained the design is somewhat 'locked in'. A DC has to then pick through the bones of what has planning permission and make it compliant with the Building Regulations.

DOCARCH

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

While I understand fully what you are saying, it is not obligatory for a planning agent to be able to act as DC/AC. While it might be nice for someone to get a 'one stop shop' type of service, it is not obligatory, necessary or in some cases desirable to be able to do this.

What I was getting at is that some 'architects' (who are not eligible to act as DC/AC) are (purposely) not telling their (potential) clients that they cannot undertake the role of DC/AC, so, they are not giving their (potential) clients whether or not they want the 'one stop shop'...some 'architects' are simply misleading their (potential) clients, presumably to get the job!

Strolling Bones

Well caveat emptor. Anyone involved in a race to the bottom deserves what they get.

Poor Uncle Tom

DOCARCH wrote: »

What I was getting at is that some 'architects' (who are not eligible to act as DC/AC) are (purposely) not telling their (potential) clients that they cannot undertake the role of DC/AC, so, they are not giving their (potential) clients whether or not they want the 'one stop shop'...some 'architects' are simply misleading their (potential) clients, presumably to get the job!

I understand what you were saying, that element of 'professional' probably don't understand the roles of DC/AC at any rate.

It's hard to believe that anyone going to build a new house in this day and age wouldn't research the process to any degree, if they did so they would have a huge list of questions for any agent, they would also know to get three quotes for any works and not just choose the local school teacher to do the work.

galwaytt

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I understand what you were saying, that element of 'professional' probably don't understand the roles of DC/AC at any rate.

It's hard to believe that anyone going to build a new house in this day and age wouldn't research the process to any degree, if they did so they would have a huge list of questions for any agent, they would also know to get three quotes for any works and not just choose the local school teacher to do the work.

I know, but it's more common than you think. That and starting before they've finished the bank paperwork. ..

galwaytt

...so, after 18 months of work by the client, including buying a site, getting planning, and pricing the job , I got my first "formal" response today of a project not going ahead specifically putting it at the door of S.I.9

"Unfortunately we have had to reconsider the approach we are taking to the move and given all the change that S.I.9 has brought into the market and the costs associated with it we have decided not to build at this time. We will hang on to our plot with a view of reconsideration in a couple years when the market has settled".

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

...so, after 18 months of work by the client, including buying a site, getting planning, and pricing the job , I got my first "formal" response today of a project not going ahead specifically putting it at the door of S.I.9

"Unfortunately we have had to reconsider the approach we are taking to the move and given all the change that S.I.9 has brought into the market and the costs associated with it we have decided not to build at this time. We will hang on to our plot with a view of reconsideration in a couple years when the market has settled".

perfect timing to use as part of a submission on the review of SI 9 !!

hammer it home to them that theres a tangible real loss of income to both the economy and the central exchequer because of SI 9's failings

theirishlad

The word of them making the building regs advisory is still out there. That would mean ya dont need assigned certifier for a one off self build. Does anyone know when the government plan to take this new rule in. Will it b weeks months year's. ?

Poor Uncle Tom

theirishlad wrote: »

The word of them making the building regs advisory is still out there. That would mean ya dont need assigned certifier for a one off self build. Does anyone know when the government plan to take this new rule in. Will it b weeks months year's. ?

This would be a regressive step in my opinion, for obvious reasons. I'm told that none of the stakeholders have backed this proposal, so it's unlikely to gain any serious momentum.

theirishlad

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This would be a regressive step in my opinion, for obvious reasons. I'm told that none of the stakeholders have backed this proposal, so it's unlikely to gain any serious momentum.

I persume your a builder or architect of some type if u feel this is a bad idea for one off homes. If ssomeone is building a home to live in they will build it to a good standard , we dont need a certifier costing 10grand to tell us its a good standard.

sydthebeat

theirishlad wrote: »

I persume your a builder or architect of some type if u feel this is a bad idea for one off homes. If ssomeone is building a home to live in they will build it to a good standard , we dont need a certifier costing 10grand to tell us its a good standard.

Decades of badly built houses would show otherwise.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This would be a regressive step in my opinion, for obvious reasons. I'm told that none of the stakeholders have backed this proposal, so it's unlikely to gain any serious momentum.

I think the stakeholders who will support it, are the Self-Builders as witnessed by the post above from,@theirishlad.

That support will be driven by the Fees associated so far with providing this service.

I wonder if the LA's are not willing to take on this inspection regime, if an offset could be agreed between the Fees associated with Planning, paid to LA's, and the sums required to have a professional carry out the required inspections etc.

We hear a lot about the low costs in UK for Building Control inspections, in the hundreds for a one off, but the Inspectors wages are being paid by the LA, and presumably subsidised by the Associated Planning Application Fees and Charges.

Poor Uncle Tom

theirishlad wrote: »

I persume your a builder or architect of some type if u feel this is a bad idea for one off homes. If ssomeone is building a home to live in they will build it to a good standard , we dont need a certifier costing 10grand to tell us its a good standard.

You may be cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

If this move were to become a reality it would lead straight away to a two tier system for one-off housing:

1.Those who have been inspected and certified,
2.Those who have not been inspected and certified,

It is likely that the sale of a house from category 2 would be percieved as being of less value than a house from category 1.

When anyone builds a house for themselves they don't envisage selling it, but the reality is that a huge percentage will end up being sold, be it in 5, 10 or 20 yaers time, imagine your family not being able to realise full value for the property because you couldn't see past the top of your nose.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

I think the stakeholders who will support it, are the Self-Builders as witnessed by the post above from,@theirishlad.

How many self-builders have actually made submissions in support of this proposal? It would be interesting to find that out.

martinn123 wrote: »

I wonder if the LA's are not willing to take on this inspection regime,

They are actually prevented from doing so by SI No.9 of 2014, This is the whole issue.

martinn123 wrote: »

if an offset could be agreed between the Fees associated with Planning, paid to LA's, and the sums required to have a professional carry out the required inspections etc.

We hear a lot about the low costs in UK for Building Control inspections, in the hundreds for a one off, but the Inspectors wages are being paid by the LA, and presumably subsidised by the Associated Planning Application Fees and Charges.

Did you actually make this proposal in a submission yourself?

theirishlad

But thats up to the person building it , if they want the certs they can still do it. So if u wanted to sell if future maybe you should get certs.

People go on about how good our trades men are in ireland so why should any house be of poor quality nowadays never mind years ago what happened. Im living now with good trades men....

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

How many self-builders have actually made submissions in support of this proposal? It would be interesting to find that out.



They are actually prevented from doing so by SI No.9 of 2014, This is the whole issue.



Did you actually make this proposal in a submission yourself?

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

You're contradicting yourself there, if you have nointerest in the topic why are you contributing to the thread?

I'm continually amazed at how many spectators stand on the fences and shout 'advice' to the masses but who won't make a submission when given the opportunity.

galwaytt

martinn123 wrote: »

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

sorry, confused I am: you have no interest in the topic, but feel compelled to post on the subject ??

Outside of that, why would you not make a submission on the subject ?

Who said it is confined to professions or tradespeople - this is a subject that affects anyone who lives in a building - you do live in a building, don't you ??

mickdw

Surely people are misunderstanding the proposal. Building regs will still apply in entirety just the requirement for complying with si9 will be relaxed for one of houses.
If people are borrowing, they will still have engineer supervising and completing cert of compliance as was always done and if this does come in, it will became standard practice across the board and as such houses will not be worth less.
I see it even now. People that had zero paper work getting a compliance cert at time of sale. The cert will be worded to exclude many items as only visual inspection took place and to be honest, once bank accepts wording, the home buyers don't even consider its contents or what it means, they just see it as nuisance paperwork.

theirishlad

mickdw wrote: »

Surely people are misunderstanding the proposal. Building regs will still apply in entirety just the requirement for complying with si9 will be relaxed for one of houses.
If people are borrowing, they will still have engineer supervising and completing cert of compliance as was always done and if this does come in, it will became standard practice across the board and as such houses will not be worth less.
I see it even now. People that had zero paper work getting a compliance cert at time of sale. The cert will be worded to exclude many items as only visual inspection took place and to be honest, once bank accepts wording, the home buyers don't even consider its contents or what it means, they just see it as nuisance paperwork.

One off the very few people talking sense on here.......

Strolling Bones

Who would build a bad house for himself?
Sure didn't the banks lend on it before?
Isn't is "signed off" anyway?

Is the political reality that will win out.

"sure it will do"

Nothing changes.