Radical plan to exempt new homes from building rules

Dr_Bill

Spotted this in the Indo today, Goverment are reviewing a plan to exempt new homes from the building regulations!

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/radical-plan-to-exempt-new-homes-from-building-rules-31192849.html

+1 for proposal to reduce building costs
-1 to building poor quality homes that fail to meet the standards

Would any of the lending institutions be prepared to finance a house that failed to meet current building standards and is poorly constructed?

DOCARCH

Just to say that there is no plan or suggestion to exempt new homes from Building Regulations!

There is a suggestion, by the DECLG, that the construction of one-off houses (and extensions) may become exempt...or there may be an opt-out...from Building Control Amendment Regulations.

All construction must comply with Building Regulations.

Dr_Bill

Thanks for the clarification :-)

We used to have a system of building control inspectors which was done away with in favour of self certification. It is clear the self certification system has been abused in the past with examples such as Priory hall being the most obvious. I would be interested to learn why the row of houses in Kildare recently burned to the ground. We know arson was the root cause, but is it not true that in timber frame houses the timbers are supposed to be treated to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

When a builder is focused on costs and generating a profit the self certification systems seems to be in conflict with the other drivers. Why use more the correct more expensive materials when I can certify that they are compliant with little risk of being found out? It makes a sham of the system for the majority of builders who do comply with the regulations.

Strolling Bones

The whole point of the (no longer) new building control regulations is to protect the state from claims arising from shoddy buildings.
Developers (commercial or one off/self builders) must make all arrangements privatley so that when things go wrong liability points away from the state. It has got nothing to do with raising building standards.

Many think something like " I don't care if some others bought bad houses my taxes should not be used to assist now." and the regs refelect that sentimment pretty well.

The only change mooted is that the one off self builder may exempt themselves from having to appoint "greedy" architects / engineers/surveyors. For who would build himself a bad house anyway - right? But you can be damn sure the legal consequences will fall firmly on the self builders shoulders.

BryanF

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification :-)

We used to have a system of building control inspectors which was done away with in favour of self certification. It is clear the self certification system has been abused in the past with examples such as Priory hall being the most obvious. I would be interested to learn why the row of houses in Kildare recently burned to the ground. We know arson was the root cause, but is it not true that in timber frame houses the timbers are supposed to be treated to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

When a builder is focused on costs and generating a profit the self certification systems seems to be in conflict with the other drivers. Why use more the correct more expensive materials when I can certify that they are compliant with little risk of being found out? It makes a sham of the system for the majority of builders who do comply with the regulations.

please refrain from discussing specific on going investigations, thanks

Strolling Bones

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Would any of the lending institutions be prepared to finance a house that failed to meet current building standards and is poorly constructed?

My guess is that we will revert to a pre SI 9 2014 situation for one off houses i.e. lenders will require the previous "Opinions on Compliance" which the market will drive the cost back down to 5 visits @ €250 each aka the old mortgage draw down service.

End everyone will be happy again.

Radical governance at it's most cynical.

Crimsonforce

i wanted to build an extension to current terraced house , but with new regulations was told it could add up to 12k to the build. hence why i stopped right there..

Strolling Bones

Very wise and there is growing evidence that you are far from alone.
All architects fault - of course.

Strolling Bones

It will be interesting to note too if the thorny issue of "director / principal of building company" will survive the "radical" change i.e. whether self build by direct labour will unambiguosly be provided for.

Strolling Bones

The 'opt-out' clause would give owners a choice and would mean "they need not be held to ransom by unaffordable quotes for professional services", the documents stated,

Merrion Squares reward for dining with the devil.

Gumbo

Crimsonforce wrote: »

i wanted to build an extension to current terraced house , but with new regulations was told it could add up to 12k to the build. hence why i stopped right there..

I think you were lied to.

What will make up the 12k of additional charges?

People need to realise, that even if BCAR was dropped tomorrow, the meeting the Technical Requirements of the Regulations has added 30k approx to a one off house alone. Construction prices will not drop IMHO.

Crimsonforce

kceire wrote: »

I think you were lied to.

What will make up the 12k of additional charges?

People need to realise, that even if BCAR was dropped tomorrow, the meeting the Technical Requirements of the Regulations has added 30k approx to a one off house alone. Construction prices will not drop IMHO.

so are you saying even with adding in the new regulations, there has been no increase in building? i find that unbelievable

Gumbo

Crimsonforce wrote: »

so are you saying even with adding in the new regulations, there has been no increase in building? i find that unbelievable

There has been an increase in the cost to appoint an Assigned Certifier, yes. But 12k for an assigned certifer for a mid errace extension i find unbelievable deffo.

Was the extension over 40 Sq. M?
Was Planning Required?

Who exactly told you the cost would be 12k extra?

Crimsonforce

kceire wrote: »

There has been an increase in the cost to appoint an Assigned Certifier, yes. But 12k for an assigned certifer for a mid errace extension i find unbelievable deffo.

Was the extension over 40 Sq. M?
Was Planning Required?

Who exactly told you the cost would be 12k extra?

Yes planning was required and approved.

architect said there is generally a 10% add on to fees.

Dudda

Crimsonforce wrote: »

Yes planning was required and approved.

architect said there is generally a 10% add on to fees.

I think you mean 10% to overall cost. If the 12k is 10% of fees then you are paying the architect more than the cost of the extension.

Crimsonforce

Dudda wrote: »

I think you mean 10% to overall cost. If the 12k is 10% of fees then you are paying the architect more than the cost of the extension.

dont be petty. you know what i meant.

Gumbo

Crimsonforce wrote: »

Yes planning was required and approved.

architect said there is generally a 10% add on to fees.

Your architect was quoting the RIAI set rates. These have been around for many years now. Did that include the planning app?

I genuinely think you have been misled or misunderstood what the Architect was telling you.

galwaytt

Crimsonforce wrote: »

so are you saying even with adding in the new regulations, there has been no increase in building? i find that unbelievable

Why is it unbelievable ? Just because the construction industry in this country has collapsed, doesn't detract from the fact that the materials industry for example, is a world market. What goes up in one sphere, goes up in another.

Where I work, should the BCMS change, won't see building prices drop by a single cent - it is not, and was not, an actual technical, or material system in the construction of buildings. And, by extension(sic ), won't bear on the quality of the building one way or the other.

BCMS is an administrative process. And that's what you were 'paying' for.

Strolling Bones

galwaytt wrote: »

And that's what you were 'paying' for.

Or not as it seems now.

http://www.bregsforum.com/2015/04/28/dail-commencement-figures-drop-post-march-2014/