Are the building regs changing for one off builds

Msrob

As the title asks anyone know if they are changing the one off building regs again?

DOCARCH

Not anytime soon I would suggest?

Gumbo

Msrob wrote: »

As the title asks anyone know if they are changing the one off building regs again?

I hope to god not!

BryanF

Msrob wrote: »

As the title asks anyone know if they are changing the one off building regs again?

Can you give us some context?

The building 'control' regulations changed last March

Some element of The building 'regulations' change every so often -for example, the stairs & noise regs changed recently and there are rumours the fire regs might be updated soon.

You need to elobrate.

rodge123

BryanF wrote: »

Can you give us some context?

The building 'control' regulations changed last March

Some element of The building 'regulations' change every so often -for example, the stairs & noise regs changed recently and there are rumours the fire regs might be updated soon.

You need to elobrate.

My guess is Msrob is wondering if they will have to pay an assigned certifier for a one off house build. I've read various articles that they may relax the assigned certifier requirement for one off builds.

If my guess is wrong, I'd still be curious to know when any changes might be made as I plan to start a new build in Aug/Sep.

BryanF

rodge123 wrote: »

My guess is Msrob is wondering if they will have to pay an assigned certifier for a one off house build. I've read various articles that they may relax the assigned certifier requirement for one off builds.

If my guess is wrong, I'd still be curious to know when any changes might be made as I plan to start a new build in Aug/Sep.

May I ask what size your self build will be?

'I guess' we will wait until we see the legislation being put to a dail vote.

IMO whatever the changes to come, there will still be the requirement for an assigned certifier, who will be putting their neck on the line ( PI insurance, primary individual sued, be they 1% or 99% liable), materials costs are rising all the time, builders are getting busy again, building regs keep getting more prescriptive ( for example see the radon discussion in this forum)

I'm not clear on how it's going to get cheaper to build a domestic house - Even with a Si9 amendment.

perhaps people need to be more modest/realistic in their expectations - could a self-builder reduce the footprint of their house from 250-200m2 ?

This suggests the average Irish home is ~88m2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10909403/British-homes-are-the-smallest-in-Europe-study-finds.html

rodge123

BryanF wrote: »

May I ask what size your self build will be?

'I guess' we will wait until we see the legislation being put to a dail vote.

IMO whatever the changes to come, there will still be the requirement for an assigned certifier, who will be putting their neck on the line ( PI insurance, primary individual sued, be they 1% or 99% liable), materials costs are rising all the time, builders are getting busy again, building regs keep getting more prescriptive ( for example see the radon discussion in this forum)

building a one-off house imho is not going to get cheaper, people need to be more modest/realistic in their expectations

This suggests the average Irish home is ~88m2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10909403/British-homes-are-the-smallest-in-Europe-study-finds.html

It's 263m2 Byran, a little larger than the average British house!
250m2 is living space with attached garage of 13m2.

Certainly not small but we are hoping to get tenders around 1300m2...otherwise we will have to hold off for a year or two.

Surely having a competent architect & engineer overseeing the build at key stages is enough to ensure a good quality build. We have these.
Having to pay them an additional ~6k to act as AC seems bonkers, red tape bureaucracy gone mad for a one off house.
Someone building a one off house is not going to want a poor job done, I know I'll be using my father in law to keep an eye on the work been done in addition to architect & engineer.

Supertech

To be fair, other than some developers who are willing to cut corners in order to save money, I doubt that anyone wants poor building work done. The question is whether contractors (or self builders) are competent and capable of delivering compliant builds with minimal supervision. In my experience, the answer is no for the majority of both. There's no doubt that the introduction of SI9 has been an absolute shambles, and that there are several other more practical alternatives which would address the concerns of all involved. The introduction of an 'opt in' system, or the removal of the requirements from one-offs and extension altogether as has been proposed is not one of them IMO. The DECLG is due to report to the Minister by the end of this month, so we should all know more by then. It'll be interesting to see what direction it all goes in after the review process is complete.

Strolling Bones

Msrob wrote: »

As the title asks anyone know if they are changing the one off building regs again?

Alan Kelly has hinted at this - and politicians always deliver :rolleyes:

Right now I would say don't hold your breath.

RORY O CONNOR

The building regs apply to one off builds as much as huge developments.

I think you will find that Arch technicians might be included in the professionals who can act as an AC. There are some very expensive rates going for AC and there are some value for money rates. I guess its a case of what you are getting for the money. AC service only or other services included in the fee-such as DC, Land registry mapping, Final cert of compliance for the planning permission, Payment certification for the loan draw down, engineering design and certification. Given the time involved these services could be added on and included in the overall fee structure as the extra time involved in not excessive and the paperwork is straightforward.

Treepole

These regs will be changing. Reverting back to close enough to what they were before for one-offs new builds/extensions. Expect an announcement at some stage this month.

Gumbo

Treepole wrote: »

These regs will be changing. Reverting back to close enough to what they were before for one-offs new builds/extensions. Expect an announcement at some stage this month.

I heard differently from an DOE source.

Darpa

Supertech wrote: »

To be fair, other than some developers who are willing to cut corners in order to save money, I doubt that anyone wants poor building work done. The question is whether contractors (or self builders) are competent and capable of delivering compliant builds with minimal supervision. In my experience, the answer is no for the majority of both. There's no doubt that the introduction of SI9 has been an absolute shambles, and that there are several other more practical alternatives which would address the concerns of all involved. The introduction of an 'opt in' system, or the removal of the requirements from one-offs and extension altogether as has been proposed is not one of them IMO. The DECLG is due to report to the Minister by the end of this month, so we should all know more by then. It'll be interesting to see what direction it all goes in after the review process is complete.

No the real question is can some certifiers be trusted to "self certify" correctly without cutting corners and pleasing their developer masters. The answer will be the same as it always has been with 'self certification' i.e. No. Honest certifiers are going to be left to carry the can and while being unable to compete with the cowboys and their pimp contractors. Because we all know the state will not enforce a single building reg or take a criminal case against any of them, and it will be left up to the civil courts and who has enough money to chase them. "Self certification" my ass.

terrarev

Treepole wrote: »

These regs will be changing. Reverting back to close enough to what they were before for one-offs new builds/extensions. Expect an announcement at some stage this month.

I've heard this from a reliable source myself. The advice was not to put in any commencements before August. SI9 Regs reverting for one-offs but staying in place for larger developments.

sydthebeat

terrarev wrote: »

I've heard this from a reliable source myself. The advice was not to put in any commencements before August. SI9 Regs reverting for one-offs but staying in place for larger developments.

id be pleasantly surprised.....

theres no DOE bill on this issue scheduled between now and july 6th, and they will most likely break for summer recess on july 16th.
so thats only 7 sitting days.......

terrarev

I was surprised when I heard myself but that's the info. Put it this way, my source is based in Tipp and said he heard from "the horses mouth" but it is possible he's being fed a line as well.

sydthebeat

terrarev wrote: »

I was surprised when I heard myself but that's the info. Put it this way, my source is based in Tipp and said he heard from "the horses mouth" but it is possible he's being fed a line as well.

wouldnt have the initials mmg by any chance?

terrarev

No. they're not the initials.

Gumbo

terrarev wrote: »

I was surprised when I heard myself but that's the info. Put it this way, my source is based in Tipp and said he heard from "the horses mouth" but it is possible he's being fed a line as well.

We had a meeting with Martin Vaughan. He is responsible for building standards in Ireland and responsible for the publication of the TGD's. And he said he does not envisage the regs changing for one off housing.

But listen, I'm no prophet, so I'll admit if I'm wrong when they do change them

terrarev

Same as really, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I'm not promising it'll happen, I'm only putting up what I heard.

DOCARCH

@terrarev...just wondering might your source be political? :rolleyes:

I'd say there is a huge political vs technical battle going on at the moment.

I for one hope the political side wins out as SI9 is a pretty sh**e piece of legislation!!!

Msrob

Treepole wrote: »

These regs will be changing. Reverting back to close enough to what they were before for one-offs new builds/extensions. Expect an announcement at some stage this month.

Any word on any changes?

Gumbo

Msrob wrote: »

Any word on any changes?

Nope. Staying the same at this moment in time.

derferjam

There is talk that while you will still need someone to sign it off you can use people to build the house that may not been registered trades men on one off builds, in other words if you want you can or a family member can help out saving labor expenses. That is as long as the Architect or Engineer is happy with the quality.

Gumbo

derferjam wrote: »

There is talk that while you will still need someone to sign it off you can use people to build the house that may not been registered trades men on one off builds, in other words if you want you can or a family member can help out saving labor expenses. That is as long as the Architect or Engineer is happy with the quality.

Thats more or less the way it is at the moment.
There are certain trades that cannot be substituted, eg. Electrical and plumbing etc

rodge123

Looks like rules will be relaxed for one off builds from September.
It will be at the clients discretion if they want to get an assigned certifier and have certification for the house.
See here

Gumbo

rodge123 wrote: »

Looks like rules will be relaxed for one off builds from September.
It will be at the clients discretion if they want to get an assigned certifier and have certification for the house.
See here

Yeah heard this this morning. Still though the general opinion is to wait and see what the wording is as the indo may have their own spin on it.

RORY O CONNOR

I am somewhat aghast at Planning and Housing Minister Paudie Coffey. He has gone against the best industry and local authority advice and chose to remove the need for an assigned certifier for one off housing projects on the grounds that people were being held to ransom, the cost of inspecting a property was too expensive, with suggestions that complying with the regulations costs up to €16,000, and was adding considerably to building costs. I am aware of an assigned certifier whose fees have typically been one quarter of this.

He has of course conveniently forgotten the ridiculously high development levies charged by local authorities once planning permission is granted and the house gets constructed-these fees can exceed €12000. This is dead money and of no benefit to the householders. At least with the assigned certifier in place the fees being charged were ultimately of benefit to the home builder and the cowboy builders got scared off. Perhaps it is the local authorities actually holding self-builders to ransom rather than the assigned certifiers.

He states that self-builders will be subject to inspection from local authorities. Given that local authorities are understaffed anyway and in my experience show scant regard for undertaking any kind of regular site inspections-where were they during the construction of Priory hall- his decision will in fact not save self-builders money but put them at the mercy of cowboy builders and they will ultimately end up out of pocket.

If he is to do anything positive perhaps he might introduce a separate legislation and create a proper building control organisation away from local authority mismanagement. This organisation could be overseen by combined input from Engineers Ireland, the RIAI and the RICS. This would take the system out of vested interests and continue to keep building standards up to the required levels. There is a suggestion that “people” could be trained to be assigned certifiers! Are these people to be any Joe Soaps or will the system be confined to properly registered construction professionals.

This is a retrograde decision and the minister has shown no vision or competence in his decision making. We are back to where we were during the boom time-Shoddy works in breach of building regulations and who is going to suffer: The public as usual.

Strolling Bones

And still nothing to stop the rogue multi unit developer from simply "purchasing" his certs from his pet profesionals

galwaytt

....good grief that's shocking - from one extreme to the other: 100% inspect & sign-off to 15% of them ? And by whom - people who aren't available ? Good luck with an owner trying to get something over the line with an inspector who has a different view.

Comptetely backward step, and opening the door to the slap-dash we thought we were about to see the back of......ah well. Looks like those people who couldn't give a monkey's about quality win the day, and the consumer will be the loser.

Treepole

Treepole wrote: »

These regs will be changing. Reverting back to close enough to what they were before for one-offs new builds/extensions. Expect an announcement at some stage this month.

kceire wrote: »

I heard differently from an DOE source.

Looks like I was proven right here :cool:

Gumbo

Treepole wrote: »

Looks like I was proven right here :cool:

And I said I'd be the first to admit if I was wrong. Still waiting on an official release from the DOE mind you.

Disappointed with how they have handled this tbh.

tails_naf

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

I am somewhat aghast at Planning and Housing Minister Paudie Coffey. He has gone against the best industry and local authority advice and chose to remove the need for an assigned certifier for one off housing projects on the grounds that people were being held to ransom, the cost of inspecting a property was too expensive, with suggestions that complying with the regulations costs up to €16,000, and was adding considerably to building costs. I am aware of an assigned certifier whose fees have typically been one quarter of this.

He has of course conveniently forgotten the ridiculously high development levies charged by local authorities once planning permission is granted and the house gets constructed-these fees can exceed €12000. This is dead money and of no benefit to the householders. At least with the assigned certifier in place the fees being charged were ultimately of benefit to the home builder and the cowboy builders got scared off. Perhaps it is the local authorities actually holding self-builders to ransom rather than the assigned certifiers.

He states that self-builders will be subject to inspection from local authorities. Given that local authorities are understaffed anyway and in my experience show scant regard for undertaking any kind of regular site inspections-where were they during the construction of Priory hall- his decision will in fact not save self-builders money but put them at the mercy of cowboy builders and they will ultimately end up out of pocket.

If he is to do anything positive perhaps he might introduce a separate legislation and create a proper building control organisation away from local authority mismanagement. This organisation could be overseen by combined input from Engineers Ireland, the RIAI and the RICS. This would take the system out of vested interests and continue to keep building standards up to the required levels. There is a suggestion that “people” could be trained to be assigned certifiers! Are these people to be any Joe Soaps or will the system be confined to properly registered construction professionals.

This is a retrograde decision and the minister has shown no vision or competence in his decision making. We are back to where we were during the boom time-Shoddy works in breach of building regulations and who is going to suffer: The public as usual.

I'm delighted to see this to be honest. Priory hall et al were the reason for this extreme legislation, which of course it would do little to prevent again. So it was pointless in that regard.

Also there were indeed people charging the 16 grand, I've seen a few quotes recently and very very few were on the 4k end, with the average closer to 8k. One off houses already have a vested interest in being built to a quality that the owner wants, and must also have an engineer sign off it meets regs for the mortgage.

Almost all of the slap dash construction I've seen in the past decade were developments and estates, with one off houses generally being to a higher standard. So I'm very glad to see this money back in the pocket of the consumer and not wasted on red tape that contributed nothing the the end result.

Strolling Bones

tails_naf wrote: »

I'm delighted to see One off houses being built to a quality that the owner wants

compliant with regs ?

tails_naf wrote: »

So I'm very glad to see this money back in the pocket of the consumer and not wasted on red tape that contributed nothing the the end result.

well the money was being used to pay for a rigourous inspection regime by an experienced profesional to certify compliance with building regulations.

But many think as you do and you are far from alone. If you can't kick it don't want to pay for it.

siubhannc

If the assigned certifier is a choice for one off builds the banks may insist on people employing them before approving the mortgage

mickdw

siubhannc wrote: »

If the assigned certifier is a choice for one off builds the banks may insist on people employing them before approving the mortgage

Well at the minute, I'm signing off a couple of houses commenced under old building control regs and certainly the banks are not looking for anything new.
I had a fear that the banks would issue new certs to be signed by AC for mortgage drawdown and that there would be a bit of a nightmare trying to explain that these houses were not infact under those rules. What I've seen is that there are happy out once they see PI insurance.

tails_naf

Strolling Bones wrote: »

compliant with regs ?



well the money was being used to pay for a rigourous inspection regime by an experienced profesional to certify compliance with building regulations.

But many think as you do and you are far from alone. If you can't kick it don't want to pay for it.

Quote me, but at the same time re-word what I said? That's fairly petty, and "unprofessional", ironic given the rest of you post going on about professionalism.

Mortgage approval previously was contingent on the building meeting the regs and being signed off by an engineer. Banks ensured this and it was a lot less red tape and cost. I was saying that in addition to that, the consumer was building for themselves so didn't usually cut corners. At least not to the extent the developers would be willing to.

Calahonda52

siubhannc wrote: »

If the assigned certifier is a choice for one off builds the banks may insist on people employing them before approving the mortgage

Never in a million years, they need to fuel the next boom so anything that gets in the way of that will be blown away

RORY O CONNOR

Mr tails_naf

I see you make no mention of the very large development levies charged by the local authorities-up to €30k in some local authorities for a three bed semi/semi detached. house. As I said in my comment perhaps its the local authorities who are holding self builders to ransom rather than the construction professional. If you think hiring a professional is expensive wait till you hire an amateur!

Strolling Bones

tails_naf wrote: »

Quote me, but at the same time re-word what I said? That's fair.

Strolling Bones

tails_naf wrote: »

Mortgage approval previously was contingent on the building meeting the regs and being signed off by an engineer. Banks ensured this

they did not as

tails_naf wrote: »

it was a lot less red tape and cost.

Pure tokenism . The banks make money by lending money and they are not concerned with anything like build qualty or compliance to frustrate that.

the consumer was building for themselves so didn't usually cut corners.

They build typically to the arbitrary metric of what they deem sensible or affordbable. Not certifiably complaint with building regaulations.

tails_naf

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Mr tails_naf

I see you make no mention of the very large development levies charged by the local authorities-up to €30k in some local authorities for a three bed semi/semi detached. house. As I said in my comment perhaps its the local authorities who are holding self builders to ransom rather than the construction professional. If you think hiring a professional is expensive wait till you hire an amateur!

I agree, we should get more for our local athority fees. 30k sounds high though. I paid 6k. I suppose last week my house could have been 6k la + 8k assigned certifier, in September it would be just the 6k, so better for sure. But it would be nice for the 6k to actually buy me something.

The way I see it, this is still a good step. The 8k bought next to nothing except reams of red tape.

tails_naf

Strolling Bones wrote: »

They build typically to the arbitrary metric of what they deem sensible or affordbable. Not certifiably complaint with building regaulations.

I built a one off house. It was signed off by an engineer for my mortgage. Nothing arbitrary about it. My house meets and exceeds the regs. My engineer saw to it. In additon I saw to it too. Where is the problem? Do you question the engineers that are approved by banks to sign off houses?

Gumbo

tails_naf wrote: »

I agree, we should get more for our local athority fees. 30k sounds high though. I paid 6k. I suppose last week my house could have been 6k la + 8k assigned certifier, in September it would be just the 6k, so better for sure. But it would be nice for the 6k to actually buy me something.

The way I see it, this is still a good step. The 8k bought next to nothing except reams of red tape.

Wouldn't this plan increase contributions?
The current contribution is for planning and development in the area and gets apportioned to various projects and area offices for this purpose.

Building Control get €30, that's it.

hotrodder

There will still be need for an assigned certifier on once off houses even though the title may not be used.
Prior to SI9 certs of substantial compliance were issued by an eng / arch. These certs were not worth the paper that they were issued on as were based on a visual inspection only. Most of the critical elements were excluded as they could not be checked within 3-5 site inspections. SI9 provided for a full clean cert and to provide this a lot of inspections were required.
In my opinion the ministers are just looking for votes and not fully aware of implications. Majority of couses constructed prior to si9 do not fully comply amd this will come to light when selling on.

Calahonda52

Re
In my opinion the ministers are just looking for votes
I agree with the sentiment but
are there really that number of votes in one off houses and extensions

Strolling Bones

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Re
In my opinion the ministers are just looking for votes
I agree with the sentiment but
are there really that number of votes in one off houses and extensions

Probably not. But house building is at an historic low and for the sake of the banks and merchants we can't have that.

No strategy to provide housing or ensure building quality though.

RORY O CONNOR

Given that there are still a lot of cowboys out there waiting to prey on self builders some sort of professional supervision should be considered. If the same level of site attendance is undertaken and instead of submitting the completion documents which include the site inspection records and the ancillary certification to the local Authority the same documents could be submitted to the self builder. That at least would provide some sort of comeback should things be found to be incorrect at later time and there will then be some redress. As things stood before March 1st last year there was no one to go to.

mickdw

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Given that there are still a lot of cowboys out there waiting to prey on self builders some sort of professional supervision should be considered. If the same level of site attendance is undertaken and instead of submitting the completion documents which include the site inspection records and the ancillary certification to the local Authority the same documents could be submitted to the self builder. That at least would provide some sort of comeback should things be found to be incorrect at later time and there will then be some redress. As things stood before March 1st last year there was no one to go to.

Ancillary certs are going to be worthless down the line.
I've said it before but if they don't want to go the route of having public building inspector, why not introduce a requirement for a bond paid up front attached to each project independently.
At least that way, professionals could price work based on time involved. Under current system of having indemnity insurance as primary cover, it is impossible to price work as that insurance might have gone ten fold more expensive in 5 years and we are bound to retain it to cover against jobs completed in the past.