New Building Control Regs

Will23

kceire wrote: »

I'm actually dissappointed in this decision.

Agree... Electioneering at its very worst.

They have justed exempted one of the most high risk types of building too.. They might as well exempt spec developments while they're at it!

And to be fair things were just bedding down over the last few months, people getting used to systems, efficiencies working themselves through in the normal way.

Disappointing for sure

galwaytt

Will23 wrote: »

Agree... Electioneering at its very worst.

They have justed exempted one of the most high risk types of building too.. They might as well exempt spec developments while they're at it!

And to be fair things were just bedding down over the last few months, people getting used to systems, efficiencies working themselves through in the normal way.

Disappointing for sure

Exactly - just as people got used to it, professionals included, and then the goalposts get moved.

Strolling Bones

Did you not read what the minister said about profesionals "holding people to ransom" ?
Just blame the architect ... ( and engineer and surveyor )

DOCARCH

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Did you not read what the minister said about profesionals "holding people to ransom" ?
Just blame the architect ... ( and engineer and surveyor )

Or the bit where the minister apologises, saying 'the Department failed to do a full and proper Regulatory Impact Assessment prior to the introduction of the regulations and failed to listen to the advice of state and semi-state bodies'.

:P

DOCARCH

By the way, I do not believe BCAR will be completely gone for one-off houses and extensions.

I think that article in the Indo yesterday was a little bit of political spin from the minister(s)...Irish Water = Bad News Day...BCAR = Good News Day!

I think there may will be 'BCAR Lite' for one-off houses and extensions.

We will only know for definite once the Department publish something (rather than ministers saying something).

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

By the way, I do not believe BCAR will be completely gone for one-off houses and extensions.

I think that article in the Indo yesterday was a little bit of political spin from the minister(s)...Irish Water = Bad News Day...BCAR = Good News Day!

I think there may will be 'BCAR Lite' for one-off houses and extensions.

We will only know for definite once the Department publish something (rather than ministers saying something).

Agreed.
IMO The key word here is 'indo' - we await an actual revision of the legislation.

Gumbo

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.
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.

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

Currently DCC are inspecting over 40% of CN's lodged. That's made up of a vast issues of building types.

Yesterday I went from a 2 storey extension to a house in Finglas to a 4 storey office conversion to short stay units (emergency accommodation).

I know Dublin is not the norm compared to other counties and we are the busiest in the country and we are the LA that others are looking at for guidance in inspection plans and how we store and save our files.

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

Exactly - just as people got used to it, professionals included, and then the goalposts get moved.

ive heard nothing but great reports from established contractors about BCARS

It levels the playing field for them in that every contractor prices the prescribed specification, and those that dont arent considered.

thats appears to be gone out the window again, and we're back to people learning on the job

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive heard nothing but great reports from established contractors about BCARS

It levels the playing field for them in that every contractor prices the prescribed specification, and those that dont arent considered.

thats appears to be gone out the window again, and we're back to people learning on the job

+1

mullingar

I for one am thrilled if this indo article is true as the BCAR professional fees are completely OTT for a self-build house and it also removed all hope of self-builders to even project management of their own home using professional trades-persons. (I do acknowledge the primary cost reason is all responsibility was placed on the AC)

I still believe that there should be independent inspections at all stages during any build, be it professional or self-build, and the UK model would have been ideal. Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

But my personal take on it the CIF got too greedy and lobbied for this unfair BSAR far too much and the legislation was poorly considered/worded, hence the pure mess.

sydthebeat

mullingar wrote: »

But my personal take on it the CIF got too greedy and lobbied for this unfair BSAR far too much and the legislation was poorly considered/worded, hence the pure mess.

and remember Big Phil was rewarded for this and other obvious debacles with a big pension and a pay roll in europe !!!

remember when he said this doozie

the requirement will “typically cost” between €1,000 and €3,000 more per housing unit

Gumbo

mullingar wrote: »

Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

But the home owner should always engage the AC/DC, not the builder!

Rabbo

mullingar wrote: »

I for one am thrilled if this indo article is true as the BCAR professional fees are completely OTT for a self-build house and it also removed all hope of self-builders to even project management of their own home using professional trades-persons. (I do acknowledge the primary cost reason is all responsibility was placed on the AC)

I still believe that there should be independent inspections at all stages during any build, be it professional or self-build, and the UK model would have been ideal. Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

But my personal take on it the CIF got too greedy and lobbied for this unfair BSAR far too much and the legislation was poorly considered/worded, hence the pure mess.

The 2013 Safety & Health Regulations still require the client to appoint a competent Project Supervisor Construction Stage (PSCS) to oversee all health and safety aspects on site. How will self-builders comply with this requirement? Similar to the BCARs, the self builder can appoint themselves as PSCS however they are declaring that they are competent enough for the role. In the event of an accident , will the Project Supervisor Design Process (PSDP) be left carrying the can for being complicit in an incompetent PSCS being appointed on site?

A relaxation of the BCARs is not consistent with the current Health and Safety legislation. If the Health and Safety legislation isn't similarly relaxed, are we just going to have a blind eye turned? In the case of an accident, I have a feeling that the PSDP, and their insurance, is going to be saddled with the blame.

Strolling Bones

mullingar wrote: »

I still believe that there should be independent inspections at all stages during any build, be it professional or self-build, and the UK model would have been ideal. Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Agreed. Future homebuyers will pay the price for as you say correctly developers will still call the shots.

mullingar wrote: »

But my personal take on it the CIF got too greedy and lobbied for this unfair BSAR far too much and the legislation was poorly considered/worded, hence the pure mess.

The profesional bodies were just as bad. One of them even shafting their technician members when they thought they saw "an opportunity".

Not one public body in fact lobbied in selfless earnest for measures aimed at heart to raise building standards.

But Mulinger there is nothing to be delighted with here. A sorely needed intevention by govt to improve building standards was so badly handled.


.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

But the home owner should always engage the AC/DC, not the builder!

No - only DC.

The AC should be funded from the pot of CN fees lodged with the LA.
So the AC/DC has no direct relationship with any party to the build.
Uk-style.

Chisler2

sydthebeat wrote: »

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

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build).

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

sydthebeat

Chisler2 wrote: »

It interests me greatly that there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds.

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the......

fact it doesnt affect the majority of the country?

Strolling Bones

Chisler2 wrote: »

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build)

Because one bad decision after another is appaling. An inspection regime which placed unisurable risks on the inspector to be replaced with no regime at all helps no one and should not be welcomed.

Chisler2 wrote: »

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Sounds appaling - please link to article. However given that this forum mostly attracts self builders explains apparent lcak of concern.

Chisler2 wrote: »

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

I don't know how fees will be impacted. But you are essentially correct.
The RIAI saw this as the creation of some sort of cash cow. Instead of doing what they should have done - loudly and publicly critising the shortfalls in the legislation as it affected house buyers - they played ball with Hogan in return for a protected status under the act. Utterly shameful.

mickdw

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Because one bad decision after another is appaling. An inspection regime which placed unisurable risks on the inspector to be replaced with no regime at all helps no one and should not be welcomed.



Sounds appaling - please link to article. However given that this forum mostly attracts self builders explains apparent lcak of concern.



I don't know how fees will be impacted. But you are essentially correct.
The RIAI saw this as the creation of some sort of cash cow. Instead of doing what they should have done - loudly and publicly critising the shortfalls in the legislation as it affected house buyers - they played ball with Hogan in return for a protected status under the act. Utterly shameful.

There was a certain satisfaction yesterday in the fact that 2 of hogans masterpieces were shown to be failures on the same day.

BryanF

Chisler2 wrote: »

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build).

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

How many professionals here have built/designed an apartment block in the last 7 years?

This is a sly piece of legislation by government, if anything, space/storage and glazing(light) should be increased in apartments, not reduced. Whether it affects fees or not is irrelevant - it's simply not on many peoples radar

Will23

the apartment standards only relate to DCC as far as i know (maybe FC/DLRCC also?), the DOE apartament standard guidance document allows a smaller size than the current DCC development plan in any case, and most other dev plan refer to this document.

in saying that i do not agree with reducing unit size. However, if they are for rental only, as the indo article suggests, and come with strings attached regarding communal facilities in developments, then i think there is a market in dublin city for these smaller studio type units for rental.

you would currently pay in excess of €1.8-2.5k per month to rent a 55sqm apartment with dual aspect in dublin city. The market needs to cater for single people living alone, without the need for house share.

the standards came in in the 2011 dev plan and there have been very few apartments designed to this standard since then.

but as i said, i think the 55 sq m, dual aspect, requirement should have stood. In fact it is the loss of the dual aspect element which is most disappointing.

Allowing for apartment buildings higher than 6-7 stories should have been the solution imo. increase density, increased units

anyway, this is off topic from BCAR.

Will

Chisler2

Will23 wrote: »

the apartment standards only relate to DCC as far as i know (maybe FC/DLRCC also?), the DOE apartament standard guidance document allows a smaller size than the current DCC development plan in any case, and most other dev plan refer to this document.

in saying that i do not agree with reducing unit size. However, if they are for rental only, as the indo article suggests, and come with strings attached regarding communal facilities in developments, then i think there is a market in dublin city for these smaller studio type units for rental.

you would currently pay in excess of €1.8-2.5k per month to rent a 55sqm apartment with dual aspect in dublin city. The market needs to cater for single people living alone, without the need for house share.

the standards came in in the 2011 dev plan and there have been very few apartments designed to this standard since then.

but as i said, i think the 55 sq m, dual aspect, requirement should have stood. In fact it is the loss of the dual aspect element which is most disappointing.

Allowing for apartment buildings higher than 6-7 stories should have been the solution imo. increase density, increased units

anyway, this is off topic from BCAR.

Will

My apologies if I have taken the thread "off focus" but the attention to one-off houses, and apparent absence of interest or reaction to diminution of quality of apartment housing, is worth questioning. There are standards and qualities...........or there are "no standards" or "sliding standards" and "anything goes".

I do mourn the simplicity of the UK system which has Local Authority inspection as standard. Quality and standards in construction are a matter of public safety and amenity. Standards and their implementation are best administered by local council professionals funded through general taxation. It is difficult to acknowledge and I wish it were other but............the construction sector in Ireland is a tangled web of vested interests and plastering-over-the-cracks compromises. The psycho-social effects of the resultant basic flaws in the built environment are phenomenal...............and saddening!

I shall now get off my soap-box.

mickdw

Chisler2 wrote: »

My apologies if I have taken the thread "off focus" but the attention to one-off houses, and apparent absence of interest or reaction to diminution of quality of apartment housing, is worth questioning. There are standards and qualities...........or there are "no standards" or "sliding standards" and "anything goes".

I do mourn the simplicity of the UK system which has Local Authority inspection as standard. Quality and standards in construction are a matter of public safety and amenity. Standards and their implementation are best administered by local council professionals funded through general taxation. It is difficult to acknowledge and I wish it were other but............the construction sector in Ireland is a tangled web of vested interests and plastering-over-the-cracks compromises. The psycho-social effects of the resultant basic flaws in the built environment are phenomenal...............and saddening!

I shall now get off my soap-box.

No doubt that a system of council inspection is what the government should have done. Much more power in the hands of the inspector to ensure standards are met.
Of course the government here just sought to take themselves out of the loop entirely and just pushed further liability on private practice. I don't know why - An inspection and certification fee could reasonably have been added to planning contributions or credibly levied on commencement. They had a golden opportunity to do this when activity was small and then ramp up as required. Any levy could have covered an insurance scheme/fund to protect government from claims.

stickybookmark

Is there any chance that those of us unlucky enough to commence building since last May but before this September could have the Bcar legislation retrospectively lifted from our build? Or an argument that could be made to not bother certifying it at the end (which will be next May) and claim that legislation is now null and void?

sydthebeat

stickybookmark wrote: »

Is there any chance that those of us unlucky enough to commence building since last May but before this September could have the Bcar legislation retrospectively lifted from our build? Or an argument that could be made to not bother certifying it at the end (which will be next May) and claim that legislation is now null and void?

any changes will require new legislation, hard to see anything being passed this year.

stickybookmark

sydthebeat wrote: »

any changes will require new legislation, hard to see anything being passed this year.

Feck it though the legislation will be passed by next May. If anyone comes asking for certification surely one could tell em take a running jump sure that requirement is null and void

sydthebeat

stickybookmark wrote: »

Feck it though the legislation will be passed by next May. If anyone comes asking for certification surely one could tell em take a running jump sure that requirement is null and void

you cannot legally send in a commencement notice though, until this amendment comes in

stickybookmark

sydthebeat wrote: »

you cannot legally send in a commencement notice though, until this amendment comes in

my commencement notice went in and was accepted, in June

atech

Two-tier system it is:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,42399,en.htm

"The new regulations will come into effect from 1st September 2015."

stickybookmark

atech wrote: »

Two-tier system it is:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,42399,en.htm

"The new regulations will come into effect from 1st September 2015."

Pity no movement on the arch techs (yet)