Are the Regs changing? "Imminent changes"

Strolling Bones

SI 9 and the inspection regime it mandates will raise building standards.
I am pleased you appear to acknowledge that.

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Local Authortity building control inspectors should have been doing it all along. Don't deflect here. Unlike in the UK our public "servants" have run away from the respsonsilities endowed upon them by legislation.

Building control inspectors were never paid to certify works. Private sector Architects and engineers were.

When we were engaged to supervise a project, we made sure to be there every second day or at least on every important pour or detail. The technical requirements haven't changed at all.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

Building control inspectors were never paid to certify works.

and their salary is / was payable for what exactly ?

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

and their salary is / was payable for what exactly ?

Oversight of the administration of the building control regulations. They are not there to design or certify any works but to ensure compliance on selected sites at random and to promote the use of good standards in general.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

Architects and engineers were.

In the case of one off houses often not i.e. no such appontment or involvement.

In the case of spec houses / apartments too.

But you know that.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

Oversight of the administration of the building control regulations. They are not there to design or certify any works but to ensure compliance on selected sites at random and to promote the use of good standards in general.

To what affect historically?

It's ok - rhetorical question.

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

In the case of one off houses often not i.e. no such appontment or involvement.

In the case of spec houses / apartments too.

But you know that.

I was involved in many many one of housing projects during the boom as a consulting engineers practice. Foundations and roof structures will always need to be designed or at the very least inspected and signed off by an engineer.

Please do not put words in my mouth by saying what I do and don't know. Thanks.

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

To what affect historically?

It's ok - rhetorical question.

Do you want answers or are you happy with your own smart arse answers?

It's ok - rhetorical question.

You are obviously not involved in the design of any dwellings, supervision of any projects if you believe that you can design something and then expect a council to oversee that design.

Strolling Bones

Well I take it you know that the mandatory appointment of AC/DC is new i.e. Since Mar 14.
Why do you suppose it was made mandatory?

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

You are obviously not involved in the design of any dwellings, supervision of any projects if you believe that you can design something and then expect a council to oversee that design.

I can expect - or hope in vain perhaps - that we could have an inspectorate akin to that in the UK. Not the de facto non existant "service" here.

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Well I take it you know that the mandatory appointment of AC/DC is new i.e. Since Mar 14.
Why do you suppose it was made mandatory?

Yes, I've heard something about these new regulations alright.

If you have been around these forums you would know that the BCAR changes were a rushed knee jerk reaction to put somebody at the top of the food chain.

You didn't answer my question by the way. Why would you want your designed overseen by a council employee? Would you not rather your design overseen and certified by yourself?

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I can expect - or hope in vain perhaps - that we could have an inspectorate akin to that in the UK. Not the de facto non existant "service" here.

Builing control is not "non existent" in Dublin. If people want a UK system it will have to b paid for. The RIAI wanted self certification, just as engineers Ireland did.

If we went down the UK route architects and engineers would lose out financially.

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

The RIAI wanted self certification, just as engineers Ireland did.

If we went down the UK route architects and engineers would lose out financially.

I'd beg to differ on both statements above! They have simply had to deal with the dice that was rolled.

kceire wrote: »

Foundations and roof structures will always need to be designed or at the very least inspected and signed off by an engineer.

They weren't always in the past...there was (and as far as I am aware is) no statutory requirement for this (i.e. design/inspection by an engineer)?

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

You didn't answer my question by the way. Why would you want your designed overseen by a council employee? Would you not rather your design overseen and certified by yourself?

I would prefer a formal Building Regulation approval process whereby

1. the BCO actually read , sought ammendments to as required and then approved documents prepared by me for compliance with building regulations. Just like in the UK

2. that process attracted a €/m2 fee sufficient to fund resources for regular
BCO inspections where s/he can enforce instances of non compliances found on site. Just like in the UK

3. that legislation provided for that in the case of the non co operating owner or builder that the additional time required by the BCO to "police" the works would be billable to the owner or builder. The BCO could "camp" at the works at the expense of the owner or builder.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

If people want a UK system it will have to b paid for. The RIAI wanted self certification, just as engineers Ireland did.

If we went down the UK route architects and engineers would lose out financially.

If people want better buildings they have to pay for it.

Forget the RIAI - they have mis handled this situation completely imo. Having worked for years in UK myself architects and engineers do not lose out but in fact benefit from the fee income derived from the formal Building Regulation Approval process.

sydthebeat

if this 'self certification' system is supposed to work properly then two things must happen

1. the statutory powers afforded to BCOs to enforce the regulations must be formally and legally passed to certifiers. As ive said many times before, the current system is an aberration because the people with the power to enforce the regulations have no responsibility to enforce them, and the people with the responsibility to enforce them have no power to do so.

2. Designers must be held accountable that their 'design' complies with regulation, as they are paid to do so.... but builders must be held accountable that that what they build is in accordance with these designs, and thus compliant, as THEY are paid to do so. To expect one profession to take responsibility for anothers work is simply ridiculous, and should be exposed as such. Builders do not work for certifiers, so why should the certifer be responsible for their work. Why wasnt the self certification system organised so thats its truely 'self certification' in that the builders certify their own works?


BCOs have many other responsibilities, we all know they are severly under resourced and under staffed.

Strolling Bones

sydthebeat wrote: »

BCOs have many other responsibilities, we all know they are severly under resourced and under staffed.

Agree with your other points - but one this one qouted - all I am saying is I have seen it work in the UK when fees are payable to resource the inspectorate.

It would be a nice bend in the road if AT's - not allowed to act as AC / DC found opportunities to act as BCO's under such a regime.

.

sydthebeat

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Agree with your other points - but one this one qouted - all I am saying is I have seen it work in the UK when fees are payable to resource the inspectorate.

It would be a nice bend in the road if AT's - not allowed to act as AC / DC found opportunities to act as BCO's under such a regime.

.

i was referring to the current resourcing and staff of BCO's.

obviously if a complete UK-like system was introduced, it would have to be adequately resourced and self funding.

it would simply be impossible to introduce the Uk system with the current resource levels

Strolling Bones

I have made the point sevreal times - with fees payable to the LA to resource

Drift

sydthebeat wrote: »

Builders do not work for certifiers, so why should the certifer be responsible for their work.

Well put syd - this is the crux of the problem! The Dept. will say the builder works for the client and so does the AC but that doesn't explain why the AC's insurance is on the line for every mistake the builder makes.

It'd be interested to know:

Did the CIF pull a masterstroke to get the regulations written as they are? Did IEI / RIAI / SCSI fall down in the representation of their members?

OR

Did Dept. officials just write it the way they did because they found it easier to "tie down" the professionals than the builders (due to lack of registers/qualifications etc.)?

sydthebeat

The second one.

A blatant refusal to deal with the huge elephant in the room, which is the unprofessionalism of the building trade and the vacuum of requirement of qualifications in the industry.

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

The second one.

A blatant refusal to deal with the huge elephant in the room, which is the unprofessionalism of the building trade and the vacuum of requirement of qualifications in the industry.

Do you think the CIRI will help with this?

sydthebeat

kceire wrote: »

Do you think the CIRI will help with this?

No not at all.

If CIRI becomes compulsory and is the only source for registering builders, I can see a situation where it's challenged in court as its run by a private organisation (CIF) and could very well be contrary to European freedom of work laws.

Also, I'm hearing that every Tim Dick and Harry is registering while it's voluntary.

Seems like the same situation when ber assessment was first introduced and min level 6 construction/engineering qualifications was supposed to be the benchmark. ... but when private training companies got involved that went out the window. Which totally undermined the system.

sydthebeat

kceire wrote: »

Do you think the CIRI will help with this?

No not at all.

If CIRI becomes compulsory and is the only source for registering builders, I can see a situation where it's challenged in court as its run by a private organisation (CIF) and could very well be contrary to European freedom of work laws.

Also, I'm hearing that every Tim Dick and Harry is registering while it's voluntary.

Seems like the same situation when ber assessment was first introduced and min level 6 construction/engineering qualifications was supposed to be the benchmark. ... but when private training companies got involved that went out the window. Which totally undermined the system.

Drift

I think the only way of implementing a proper system going forward is for there to be Third Level courses (with a statutory footing) providing training to new entrants to the contractor market. This combined with X years of experience should then be necessary to join a register as a competent contractor.

That still leaves at least 20 years worth of "legacy" builders to be dealt with and I don't think they should necessarily be sent back to college - which leaves the question of what do you do with them!!!

dathi

sydthebeat wrote: »

Also, I'm hearing that every Tim Dick and Harry is registering while it's voluntary.

Seems like the same situation when ber assessment was first introduced and min level 6 construction/engineering qualifications was supposed to be the benchmark. ... but when private training companies got involved that went out the window. Which totally undermined the system.

while i know that ber is a different piece of legislation the ber assessors had to have pi insurance i wonder what percentage of ber certs are on the register from people who have delisted and are no longer covered by insurance. can see a lot of problems in the future with si9 with certifiers not covered by insurance and having no assets for the home owner to sue

Strolling Bones

Ergo SI9 will fail in one of it's stated objectives.

Strolling Bones

The minister said that when it came to small developments, houses and extensions, the current rules were ”like using a mallet to crack a nut. We cannot continue with the present regulations for one off houses, extensions and small developments. Regulations need to be simpler to understand and comply with for people in the countryside who want to build their own houses; you don’t want them facing unexpected costs.

Building regulations are important, but you don’t need the same conditions for an eight-storey apartment as an extension to a three-bedroom house.”

The full article in the Independent covers a range of additional items including An Bord Pleanala, rural regeneration, wind farms and a new Planning Bill to also “crack down on large multiples that are holding vacant sites

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/alan-kelly-hits-out-at-sinn-feins-utopia-of-welfareforlife-30973282.html

Gumbo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/alan-kelly-hits-out-at-sinn-feins-utopia-of-welfareforlife-30973282.html

We are expecting word from the Department this month with regards to this. The Greater Dublin Area meetings seemly have been discussing it for a number of weeks.