Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New Building Control Regs

1…1516182021…23

Comments

  • #512
    martinn123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    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.

    Well I have checked the Forum Charter, and it does not appear to disallow contributions from those who do not have a direct financial interest in a topic

    As to shouting advice to the masses.......that's a bit rich, but if I was shouting, sorry about that ( thought you had to type in Bold to Shout )
    Galwaytt wrote:
    you do live in a building, don't you

    Yep.


  • #513
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    It looks like that it will be that

    - the one off self builder can make his own bed and lie in it
    - the spec developer will be able to buy his certifier/certification

    Priory Halls / "Kildare" houses will continue.

    And will alwaysl be "the architects fault".

    Well played Merrion Square.


  • #514
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    theirishlad wrote: »
    One off the very few people talking sense on here.......

    Really!
    Now I'm not interested in all the regs etc,
    I was just seeing if there was some easier way around it as the budget is very tight.

    These are just examples of quotes from a current thread on the main C&P forum which I think demonstrate the attitude towards building regulations when the reason for them is not understood.

    Budget on a job will ALWAYS take precidence.

    Getting qualified Certificates for older houses may still be accepted, but the point is that if a two tier system comes into play, not every solicitor for a purchaser will accept the qualified certificate as it will be percieved as being of lesser value and therefore covering less.


  • #515
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    as it will be percieved as being of lesser value and therefore covering less.


    Except I beleive that "full" certification as it will become known will be regarded as only the rich mans indulgence. Who would not pay all those "excessive" fees once you can afford to ? But the common view will be that "partial" cerification will be regarded as the norm for "ordinary" people and the housing market will function bouyantly on that basis in due course. Solicitors and banks will play along don't worry about that.

    I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

    The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.


  • #516
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    Except I beleive that "full" certification as it will become known will be regarded as only the rich mans indulgence. Who would not pay all those "excessive" fees once you can afford to ? But the common view will be that "partial" cerification will be regarded as the norm for "ordinary" people and the housing market will function bouyantly on that basis in due course. Solicitors and banks will play along don't worry about that.

    You could be right, but that remains to be seen. My feeling on it is that it will be used as a means of getting the sale price for a property lowered, if there is not 'full' certification of a property then it would be used as a bargaining tool to drop the price.
    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

    But that would make for very aquard pillow talk.....:D
    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.

    They still do, if you listen to the recent sound bites.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    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. ?

    According to officials in the Department, this is a non runner to them. The LA's made a submission and everyone of them said they do not want this rule to enacted on.


  • #518
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    and govt ministers always listen....

    .


  • #519
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    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. .

    You understand it. I understand it, many people understand it. But that's not what irishlad is saying, to wit :
    theirishlad wrote: »
    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.

    He's advocating there for no certs at all, unless you're selling. Maybe. But if you don't inspect and 'certify' as you go along, how on earth would you expect anyone to hand you a Cert in 5/10/15 years down the line ?

    And as for this line......
    theirishlad wrote: »
    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....

    ..if all the work is that good: why the litany of problems ?

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #520
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    galwaytt wrote: »
    But if you don't inspect and 'certify' as you go along, how on earth would you expect anyone to hand you a Cert in 5/10/15 years down the line ? ?

    What people want is to begrudge paying anything for "a peice of paper" upon which they will later rely on to sue the fool who gives it to them.

    And so re enter the much maligned "opinion" certificate which by necesity must be heavily caveatted.

    People truly get what they want.


  • #521
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

    The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.

    The former paragraph I know what you meant, but I think the language is getting mixed up, to wit: there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with Building Regulations - what's wrong is the (non-existent) enforcement of them. No regulation is any good unless (properly enforced and supervised). This what BCMS was supposed to cure - that and insulate the State from claims (as you say). Take the famous cases with regard to Fire: the Regulations stipulate (say) 1 hour detailing. None was carried out, none inspected to ensure compliance (or if they were, promptly ignored), and all were 'signed off' (by various people). None of this is a failing of regulations - it's a failing of building 'control', inspection and certification.

    If they changed the Regulations to make that detail 1.5hrs tomorrow it wouldn't make a jot of a difference if its not actually being done on site in the first place - this is why more onerous regulation is sometimes counter-productive.

    The latter paragraph certainly rings true, but I suspect the RIAI didn't anticipate the backlash and the amount of business going off a cliff on this: if they didn't tell the DoE as part of the process that they would be charging many multiples of what Phil Hogan told the Dáil the extra costs would be, then they were either manipulative or naieve in the extreme. All they've done is cut off their own noses......

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    Gtt - we are on the very same page.


  • #523
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    Gtt - we are on the very same page.

    Indeed. Thank God for the UK market, that's all I can say.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #524
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Mod Note: Just to say that I moved recent posts in relation to planning/retention to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055080784


  • #525
    tipperary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭tipperary


    Looks like a change in the Regulations is imminent: One-off homes and house extensions will be exempt from regulations introduced just last year to prevent shoddy building work, it has been confirmed


  • #526
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Rather than exempt...reading that article the suggestion is optional! Daft!

    If it proceeds on that basis, in 10 years time will we possibly have a two tier property market? One off houses/extensions with full certification and without?


  • #527
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    From Indo article: 'Education courses will also be developed to allow people become assigned certifiers'.

    Sounds like BER all over again! :rolleyes:


  • #528
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,856 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The Indo have a proven track record for adding 2 + 2 and getting 5... so ill hold my comments on this until i see published documentation.

    But what seems certain that one offs and extensions will be removed from Si 9.... most probable to simply fall back into pre si 9 conditions.

    i wonder what financial institutions will make of this and how they will protect themselves on mortgage payments?


  • #529
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    i wonder what financial institutions will make of this and how they will protect themselves on mortgage payments?

    They make money by lending money.
    They don't care if you live in a firetrap radon or pyrite infested hovel costing you twice whats it's value is now.

    And the punters will oblige taking on debts regardless.

    Nothing has changed and nothing will.


  • #530
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    tipperary wrote: »
    Looks like a change in the Regulations is imminent: One-off homes and house extensions will be exempt from regulations introduced just last year to prevent shoddy building work, it has been confirmed

    Take a bow Mandy Gal :cool:


  • #531
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,856 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    They make money by lending money.
    They don't care if you live in a firetrap radon or pyrite infested hovel costing you twice whats it's value is now.

    And the punters will oblige taking on debts regardless.

    Nothing has changed and nothing will.

    not if they start repossessing builds that turn out to be lower value and unsellable, as they are finding out these days.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    I take your point.
    The real enforcers of building standards may yet prove to be the money lenders.


  • #533
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,856 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    I take your point.
    The real enforcers of building standards may yet prove to be the money lenders.

    or maybe just refuse to offer full mortgages to non inspected dwellings in the future?


  • #534
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    I'm actually dissappointed in this decision.


  • #535
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    It will be welcomed by many here.
    Build by Boards :rolleyes:


  • #536
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    It will be welcomed by many here.
    Build by Boards :rolleyes:

    I believe all housing should have a certifier, even one off's.
    I believe the self build should have been relaxed if there was an AC on board to supervise.


  • #537
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    and same for renovations exceeding 40m2 too imo


  • #538
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Strolling Bones wrote: »
    and same for renovations exceeding 40m2 too imo

    Yeah all works (New Build & Extensions of any size) can proceed by direct labour if there is an AC on board, that would be my view.


  • #539
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,887 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    kceire wrote: »
    Yeah all works (New Build & Extensions of any size) can proceed by direct labour if there is an AC on board, that would be my view.

    But this seems to be a complete row back to pre si9 for one of dwellings.
    The article in the indo is then spun to make it sound like local authorities inspections are now being put in place instead when the truth is that inspection on about 1 in 8 builds was the norm pre si9.
    It seems we will be returning to the old situation of only having a professional on board if you are borrowing for the works.
    Still. I'm not complaining.
    On a side note, I'm not sure a high level of compliance was being achieved anyway in cases when householders were not borrowing for the works - There has been cases here of no commencement being sent.


  • #540
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,856 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    mickdw wrote: »
    But this seems to be a complete row back to pre si9 for one of dwellings.
    The article in the indo is then spun to make it sound like local authorities inspections are now being put in place instead when the truth is that inspection on about 1 in 8 builds was the norm pre si9.
    It seems we will be returning to the old situation of only having a professional on board if you are borrowing for the works.
    Still. I'm not complaining.

    in my experience inspections for one offs and extensions were none in anything or 0%

    the 15% of inspections were usually made up by inspecting large developments


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,887 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    in my experience inspections for one offs and extensions were none in anything or 0%

    the 15% of inspections were usually made up by inspecting large developments

    Not the case in mayo at all. Since about 2008, they were getting to about 1 in 8 of my jobs all of which were one off new dwellings.
    Now the inspection was petty standard across the board. Initial letter requesting provisional BER with calcs in electronic format showing part L compliance.
    Copy of drawings
    Drawings showing compliance with part M, items from part F and sometimes items from part B.
    Officer would then make site visit a couple of times throughout build.
    Painless enough tbh and certainly not looking for anything that should not be in place in any recent build anyway.


Advertisement