Who enforces building regs?

donalh087

Just a question - I am really not planning this - I would just like to know how the system works.

Suppose I got planning permission to build a new house and was in the fortunate position to build mortgage free. There are building regs that cost but (thankfully) don't apply to me - the disabled access for example. If I told my builder - or built it myself - and had a house with no ramps, no wider doors etc - who would be any the wiser?

I understand your engineer needs to 'sign things off' but for whom? Where does he send the form?

If I was building mortgage free - do I need an engineer so sign things off?

Gumbo

donalh087 wrote: »

Suppose I got planning permission to build a new house and was in the fortunate position to build mortgage free. There are building regs that cost but (thankfully) don't apply to me - the disabled access for example.

Wrong, the Building Regulations do apply to you. Part M, entry, threshold and internal circulation will apply to you.

donalh087 wrote: »

I understand your engineer needs to 'sign things off' but for whom? Where does he send the form?

No Engineer/Surveyor/Architect will sign off on this build as his PI Insurance, Professional Membership of IEI, RIAI, SCSI etc will be questioned

donalh087 wrote: »

If I was building mortgage free - do I need an engineer so sign things off?

Technically you could do it without, but who will design the structure etc
What if you want to sell down the line?
What if you pass and your children need to sort this out, they will have to demolish IMO.

donalh087

kceire wrote: »

Wrong, the Building Regulations do apply to you. Part M, entry, threshold and internal circulation will apply to you.

I know that - they apply to everyone. I am asking what would happen if one chose not to adhere to them. Maybe a different example - part L - what if I never put in any renewables? Is the only problem when I come to sell?

kceire wrote: »

No Engineer/Surveyor/Architect will sign off on this build as his PI Insurance, Professional Membership of IEI, RIAI, SCSI etc will be questioned

I understand that too - I asked 'to whom' does he sign it off? Literally, does he give a piece of paper to someone saying I built my house correctly?

kceire wrote: »

What if you want to sell down the line?
What if you pass and your children need to sort this out, they will have to demolish IMO.

Is this the only real restriction?

Gumbo

donalh087 wrote: »

I know that - they apply to everyone. I am asking what would happen if one chose not to adhere to them. Maybe a different example - part L - what if I never put in any renewables? Is the only problem when I come to sell?

I understand that too - I was asking 'to whom' does he sign it off? Literally, does he give a piece of paper to someone saying I built my house correctly?

Is this the only real restriction?

He wont give the Cert, that's the problem and most likely report to the Building Control section of your Council. They will then enforce it or issue Enforcement Proceedings against the home owner.

donalh087

OK - I'm getting closer to understanding ~I think. He wont give the Cert Who won't give, what cert, to whom?

(It may not be obvious but I am very new to building :-) )

sydthebeat

its quite simple

would you buy a car with no ABS, no power steering, no seat belts, separated chassis and bald tyres?
if the answer is no, then why would anyone buy a house thats not built to regulation.

if you spend money building a house that doesnt comply, you may as well be throwing it down a well.
Are you willing to take that risk?

I know of some "celtic tiger" era houses that were built without certification and not to regulation and, now that solicitors are VERY conscious of certification, they are being sold with the original builders loosing money on them.

If you have the finances to take that risk... so be it.

Penn

donalh087 wrote: »

Suppose I got planning permission to build a new house and was in the fortunate position to build mortgage free. There are building regs that cost but (thankfully) don't apply to me - the disabled access for example. If I told my builder - or built it myself - and had a house with no ramps, no wider doors etc - who would be any the wiser?

The trouble is this type of thinking is incredibly short-sighted regardless. What happens if you or a loved one (not even someone living in the house, but a relative who might end up visiting) requires the provisions set out in the disabled access regulations?

It's a few slightly wider doors, a bit of a ramp (doesn't even need to be on the front entrance) and a larger downstairs bathroom (which should have been part of the original design anyway). You only get one shot at building your house right, and it could be extremely painful if something were to happen were those items to become badly needed.

Regardless, if you don't need certification for a mortgage, you'll still need it for compliance with planning permission (which your disabled access provisions should have been shown on), if you ever wish to sell the house or pass it on to your children and they wish to sell it (first thing a prospective buyer will look for is certification for compliance with building regulations applicable at the time, impossible to do after the fact) and if any defects appeared after building was complete.

Gumbo

Penn wrote: »

The trouble is this type of thinking is incredibly short-sighted regardless. What happens if you or a loved one (not even someone living in the house, but a relative who might end up visiting) requires the provisions set out in the disabled access regulations?

Agree.

Penn wrote: »

Regardless, if you don't need certification for a mortgage, you'll still need it for compliance with planning permission (which your disabled access provisions should have been shown on), if you ever wish to sell the house or pass it on to your children and they wish to sell it (first thing a prospective buyer will look for is certification for compliance with building regulations applicable at the time, impossible to do after the fact) and if any defects appeared after building was complete.

just to clarify that the Planning Regulations are different to the Building Regulations. You can have a Certificate of Compliance with Planning and no Certificate of Compliance with Building Regulations and vice versa.

The planning process does not look at Part M access during its application.

Penn wrote: »

It's a few slightly wider doors, a bit of a ramp (doesn't even need to be on the front entrance) and a larger downstairs bathroom (which should have been part of the original design anyway). You only get one shot at building your house right, and it could be extremely painful if something were to happen were those items to become badly needed.

I would argue against this. It needs to be on the main entrance, or the entrance where anyone getting out of a car would go to.

Penn

kceire wrote: »

just to clarify that the Planning Regulations are different to the Building Regulations. You can have a Certificate of Compliance with Planning and no Certificate of Compliance with Building Regulations and vice versa.

The planning process does not look at Part M access during its application.

Agreed, however his designer should have included these items as part of the design prior to submission of planning permission, as such a change in this design (like the removal of a ramp on an external elevation) would be different than what planning was granted for. I've known architects who refused to sign compliance with planning and building regs because the client told the builders not to put in a ramp (which was on the planning drawings).

In addition, if the OP is hiring a professional to sign off for planning permission compliance, it makes sense to get them to sign off for building regs too.

kceire wrote: »

I would argue against this. It needs to be on the main entrance, or the entrance where anyone getting out of a car would go to.

It should be on the main entrance, but doesn't have to be. This is dependent on site constraints etc. However, I would argue that putting one on the back (obviously still within the access route provisions on TGD-M) is more favourable than not putting one in at all if the OP's main concern is the appearance of it on the front.

donalh087

Can we get back to the original question?

I am (honestly) not going to build outside of regs (I thought that was very clear).

I am just trying to find out the logistics. Is there a completion form of sorts that needs to be sent to the Council?
Is it one form or are there many? How does the 'sign it off' bit work?

Penn

donalh087 wrote: »

Can we get back to the original question?

I am (honestly) not going to build outside of regs (I thought that was very clear).

I am just trying to find out the logistics. Is there a completion form of sorts that needs to be sent to the Council?
Is it one form or are there many? How does the 'sign it off' bit work?

Logistically, it's a single form filled out by your architect/surveyor/engineer, and since there's no mortgage or anything, is issued to you. They're signing it saying that they've inspected the works during construction to a reasonable degree and that the works were carried out in accordance with Building Regulations.

It means when you go to sell the house, you have proof that a registered, competent, insured professional oversaw the works and were happy with it.

It's an invaluable document to have, and not one which can be gotten afterwards because no professional would sign it off without being able to see the very soil the foundations are sitting on, the damp proofing in the floors and walls, the insulation within the walls etc. No amount of opening up of works could satisfy the vast majority of professionals after it's already built.

donalh087

Brilliant. Thank you Penn.

Tedious Bore

isn't there the option now to opt out of the statutory certification process for a one-off build? http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C42563%2Cen.pdf

Also, I wonder if you thoroughly documented, maybe even actually filmed the process of your build at all the crucial steps, would it ever be possible get it signed off retrospectively years later

Gumbo

Tedious Bore wrote: »

isn't there the option now to opt out of the statutory certification process for a one-off build? http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C42563%2Cen.pdf

That is simply the administration process of appointing an Assigned certifier and getting a Completion Certificate placed on the Statutory Register by the LA. The Technical requirements of the Building Regulations still need to be met 100%.

Tedious Bore wrote: »

Also, I wonder if you thoroughly documented, maybe even actually filmed the process of your build at all the crucial steps, would it ever be possible get it signed off retrospectively years later

I wouldn't sign off based on photos or a video handed to me by the client. And I don't think any professional would either. If you ever find yourself in court, the judge will ask you "did you see the works in question?"

Steer55

kceire wrote: »

That is simply the administration process of appointing an Assigned certifier and getting a Completion Certificate placed on the Statutory Register by the LA. The Technical requirements of the Building Regulations still need to be met 100%.



I wouldn't sign off based on photos or a video handed to me by the client. And I don't think any professional would either. If you ever find yourself in court, the judge will ask you "did you see the works in question?"

Isn't it possible to get an opinion on compliance which is perfectly acceptable to the law society.

sydthebeat

Steer55 wrote: »

Isn't it possible to get an opinion on compliance which is perfectly acceptable to the law society.

what is "perfectly acceptable" is changing all the time.

we have many jobs these days where the qualified certs of the celtic tiger era simply arent acceptable to the purchasers solicitor.

in the last job i did with this.. a cert was provided which stated that 10 of the 14 conditions of planning hadnt been complied with !!!!
The house was 1.0 m higher than granted, it was 7 meters further back than granted, and the vehicular entrance was on the completely wrong side of the site despite a planning condition explicitly requiring it to be moved to the other side of the site.

this certififcate was "perfectly acceptable" to the banks solicitors 10 years ago..... its nowhere near acceptable today.

paddysdream

sydthebeat wrote: »

what is "perfectly acceptable" is changing all the time.

we have many jobs these days where the qualified certs of the celtic tiger era simply arent acceptable to the purchasers solicitor.

in the last job i did with this.. a cert was provided which stated that 10 of the 14 conditions of planning hadnt been complied with !!!!
The house was 1.0 m higher than granted, it was 7 meters further back than granted, and the vehicular entrance was on the completely wrong side of the site despite a planning condition explicitly requiring it to be moved to the other side of the site.

this certififcate was "perfectly acceptable" to the banks solicitors 10 years ago..... its nowhere near acceptable today.

Interested after reading this.

My house (built c.15 years ago) is 4m higher than planning ie instead of the floor level being 1m above the road its 5m due to the fact that digging down into a site and leaving a steep bank at the back would. be madness.
No native hedge ever sown around it.
House sited about 5m back from the road than on planning.
Percolation area is on a different side than on planning.
Windows fitted are ones that planning office insisted were not to be used so we sent in different designs that we binned as soon as planning went through(Was a bit annoyed with this one as neighbour had exact same windows on similar house built about a year previous.)
Window in attic gables that we put in at blockwork stage.
Full attic conversion to living area with stairs whilst in the building process(allowed it was cheaper to do it then rather than 10 years down the road.)
Entrance completely different style to that on planning application.
No aqua drains fitted at road and no soakpit to collect excess water from site.(runs out gate and into culvert at side of road.
Footprint of house about 2m longer and 1m wider than on plans.

There are 10 off the top of my head.There are probably a few more but to be honest once planning was granted just cracked on and never really bothered Never checked by council etc etc.
To be fair no actual mortgage involved no no certs etc were ever needed or looked for.All the council were interested in was the development levies..Built on my own land with a ordinary loan over time.Friend drew up the plans,done all the planning app,percolation etc myself.
Not exactly worried re. selling etc as its on my farm and not likely to be ever sold.

BryanF

paddysdream wrote: »

Interested after reading this.

My house (built c.15 years ago) is 4m higher than planning ie instead of the floor level being 1m above the road its 5m due to the fact that digging down into a site and leaving a steep bank at the back would. be madness.
No native hedge ever sown around it.
House sited about 5m back from the road than on planning.
Percolation area is on a different side than on planning.
Windows fitted are ones that planning office insisted were not to be used so we sent in different designs that we binned as soon as planning went through(Was a bit annoyed with this one as neighbour had exact same windows on similar house built about a year previous.)
Window in attic gables that we put in at blockwork stage.
Full attic conversion to living area with stairs whilst in the building process(allowed it was cheaper to do it then rather than 10 years down the road.)
Entrance completely different style to that on planning application.
No aqua drains fitted at road and no soakpit to collect excess water from site.(runs out gate and into culvert at side of road.
Footprint of house about 2m longer and 1m wider than on plans.

There are 10 off the top of my head.There are probably a few more but to be honest once planning was granted just cracked on and never really bothered Never checked by council etc etc.
To be fair no actual mortgage involved no no certs etc were ever needed or looked for.All the council were interested in was the development levies..Built on my own land with a ordinary loan over time.Friend drew up the plans,done all the planning app,percolation etc myself.
Not exactly worried re. selling etc as its on my farm and not likely to be ever sold.

What exactly do you find 'interesting' ?
We obey the law here. If your here to glote that your flaunting the planning legislation - there's no need - it's not interesting, it's short sighted.
I hope you can regularise this before your family need to deal with it.

paddysdream

BryanF wrote: »

What exactly do you find 'interesting' ?
We obey the law here. If your here to glote that your flaunting the planning legislation - there's no need - it's not interesting, it's short sighted.
I hope you can regularise this before your family need to deal with it.

I find it interesting that there is no real enforcement of rules like these.
Not here to gloat about"flaunting" planning laws,more making an observation that many of the houses built since 1963 may not have complied to the letter with the planning grant,esp. one off houses in rural areas as who is ever gonna look at them and even if they do then either what will they actually do and lets be honest in most cases retention is a paperwork exercise.
What exactly do I need to "regularise"?
The fact that my house aint exactly as it appears on a piece of paper from 15 years ago?
Do you seriously think my family will have a problem in the future?If so then what problem exactly?

BryanF

paddysdream wrote: »

I find it interesting that there is no real enforcement of rules like these.
Not here to gloat about"flaunting" planning laws,more making an observation that many of the houses built since 1963 may not have complied to the letter with the planning grant,esp. one off houses in rural areas as who is ever gonna look at them and even if they do then either what will they actually do and lets be honest in most cases retention is a paperwork exercise.
What exactly do I need to "regularise"?
The fact that my house aint exactly as it appears on a piece of paper from 15 years ago?
Do you seriously think my family will have a problem in the future?If so then what problem exactly?

Your posting in the building regulations & legislation forum.

You've plainly stated your dwelling is in breach of the planning legislation/ the law. Your house doesn't comply with its grant planning permission.

perhaps some day your family may wish to build another house,

or take a loan out against your house,

or need to sell after your gone,

your actions have made these times more difficult than they needed to be.

Pat Mustard

The local authority is responsible for code enforcement.

I'm not saying that it hasn't ever happened but I have not come across a situation where a local authority has prosecuted a house owner for breach of building regulations. Breach of planning is a different matter, which is commonly pursued by local authorities.

Fire regs are part of building regs. If there is a breach of fire regs as they may apply to apartments etc, there could be trouble from the local authority. People will remember that the Priory Hall apartments were evacuated by the local authority.

Also, even if breaches of building regs are not enforced, if or when the property changes hands, a good engineer will spot the problems and a purchaser may seek reduction in sale price.

If the purchaser is dependent on a loan to purchase the property, the solicitor for the purchaser is likely to have to attempt to clear the matter with the bank, which may delay or even call a halt to the loan and as a result, the sale of the property.

paddysdream

BryanF wrote: »

Your posting in the building regulations & legislation forum.

You've plainly stated your dwelling is in breach of the planning legislation/ the law. Your house doesn't comply with its grant planning permission.

perhaps some day your family may wish to build another house,

or take a loan out against your house,

or need to sell after your gone,

your actions have made these times more difficult than they needed to be.

Not really interested in a lecture etc but my family have built 3 more houses on the farm since mine and no problems.
Why would taking out a loan against the property be a problem?
Unlikely to be sold but who knows?

Regarding planning what percentage of farm buildings in Ireland have planning or even have retention applied for ?5% ,10%, higher?
Have never seen anyone apply for farm building planning unless its a condition of a grant scheme.
Anyways thats my "interest" over in the matter.My point re. my own house was not to gloat rather to use it as an example of the reality on the ground.
Has it changed much since?In my opinion no as all 3 of my family members who built since have never had any interest/inspections from council etc .Their only interest was in getting all the fees owed.
Of course I know my house doesn't strictly comply with planning but that wasn't my point,rather the lack of any real incentive to actually comply.Everyone knows that unless you blatantly do something stupid there is no real issue,despite numerous edicts over the years.

recedite

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I'm not saying that it hasn't ever happened but I have not come across a situation where a local authority has prosecuted a house owner for breach of building regulations. Breach of planning is a different matter, which is commonly pursued by local authorities.

I built a house circa 2000-2005 using direct labour, there was never any inspection by the local authority. When finished I sent in photos of each elevation in order to get a planning security deposit back from them. That was the proof of compliance with planning conditions.

In terms of building regs, I would have had no need for anything in writing except that I needed to draw down a loan, so I got an architect's opinion that the build was at a certain stage, which letter was sent in to the building society.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Fire regs are part of building regs. If there is a breach of fire regs as they may apply to apartments etc, there could be trouble from the local authority. People will remember that the Priory Hall apartments were evacuated by the local authority.

Worth noting that it was a judge that ordered the evacuation, not the local authority. And only after a legal dispute between owners and the builder.
There are of course thousands of homes currently occupied which are far worse than Priory Hall in terms of their lack of fire barriers. I've seen terraced houses with little or no wall between the roofs in the attic. But that's fine because they have no paperwork and were built prior to the regs, so there is nobody to sue.

So in answer to the OP, the short answer is nobody enforces the building regs. Its all about the threat of legal action; who could sue who, and whose PI insurance would carry the can in the event of somebody sueing somebody else over non-compliance.

sydthebeat

those who have the power to enforce building regulations have no responsibility to do so.

those who have the responsibility to enforce the building regulations have no power to do so.

its a broken system.

Pat Mustard

recedite wrote: »

I built a house circa 2000-2005 using direct labour, there was never any inspection by the local authority. When finished I sent in photos of each elevation in order to get a planning security deposit back from them. That was the proof of compliance with planning conditions.

The acceptable evidence is usually a certificate/opinion of a suitably qualified engineer/architect etc. Photos of elevations are not sufficient evidence of compliance with planning permission for financial institutions.

A cash purchaser can buy whatever he wants but most of them have the sense to take proper advice and to look for the appropriate evidence of compliance. After all, they may have to sell on to a purchaser who may need a mortgage.

recedite wrote: »

In terms of building regs, I would have had no need for anything in writing except that I needed to draw down a loan, so I got an architect's opinion that the build was at a certain stage, which letter was sent in to the building society.

That is in a specific situation of a house in the course of construction. The bank will allow the solicitor to qualify the solicitor's undertaking regarding title, such that no certificate/opinion on compliance will be given and that the bank will have to rely on the certificates from the engineer/architect.

Following the completion of the house, if you looked for another mortgage on it, your solicitor would be required to give an undertaking to give good title to the bank, meaning that an opinion of an engineer/architect would be required as evidence of compliance with building regulations.

Otherwise the solicitor would have to get the bank's consent qualify his undertaking to the bank.

I would suspect that the bank would look for the opinions on compliance. If there were issues of non-compliance, unless they were relatively minor and inexpensive to rectify, the bank would be reluctant to proceed on that basis.

The upshot is that if there is substantial non-compliance, there will be problems in getting a loan on the property or selling it on.

Gumbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

those who have the power to enforce building regulations have no responsibility to do so.

those who have the responsibility to enforce the building regulations have no power to do so.

its a broken system.

Lack of serious enforcement proceedings from Building Control authorities mean the builder/home owner hasn't much to fear.
They are more scared of planning enforcement than Building Control currently. That's the sad state of affairs.

Building Control need to draw a line in the sand and start issuing enforcement proceedings for serious breeches.

Penn

paddysdream wrote: »

Of course I know my house doesn't strictly comply with planning but that wasn't my point,rather the lack of any real incentive to actually comply.Everyone knows that unless you blatantly do something stupid there is no real issue,despite numerous edicts over the years.

It's not a case that your house doesn't strictly comply with planning, it's that what you built does not have planning permission from what you've described. This isn't a case of moving a window or changing a finish which may still be in substantial compliance, where no new or greater contravention to the design has occurred. The changes you made are so far outside of what was granted that you do not have planning permission for what you built.

This will cause issues further down the line. Whether through trying to sell it (nobody knows what the future holds and if/why you or your family may need to sell it) or maybe taking out a loan by borrowing against the house etc. Banks will look for certs for the property.

To be honest, I don't know why you bothered applying for planning in the first place considering how far out what you actually built was from what you got permission for. Your grant of planning is worth nothing, and you would have saved yourself the cost of the development contribution fees too.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

I built a house circa 2000-2005 using direct labour, there was never any inspection by the local authority. When finished I sent in photos of each elevation in order to get a planning security deposit back from them. That was the proof of compliance with planning conditions.

In terms of building regs, I would have had no need for anything in writing except that I needed to draw down a loan, so I got an architect's opinion that the build was at a certain stage, which letter was sent in to the building society.

Worth noting that it was a judge that ordered the evacuation, not the local authority. And only after a legal dispute between owners and the builder.
There are of course thousands of homes currently occupied which are far worse than Priory Hall in terms of their lack of fire barriers. I've seen terraced houses with little or no wall between the roofs in the attic. But that's fine because they have no paperwork and were built prior to the regs, so there is nobody to sue.

So in answer to the OP, the short answer is nobody enforces the building regs. Its all about the threat of legal action; who could sue who, and whose PI insurance would carry the can in the event of somebody sueing somebody else over non-compliance.

Also worth noting hat the judges hand was forced by the chief fire officer for Dublin City when it was shown that the whole front facade could in theory fall flat down onto any tenders that arrived at the scene so hence, DFB would not attend.

recedite

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The acceptable evidence is usually a certificate/opinion of a suitably qualified engineer/architect etc. Photos of elevations are not sufficient evidence of compliance with planning permission for financial institutions.

As mentioned the photos were for the local authority, so that they would release my security deposit.

The lender did not require anything on completion because at that stage the money was long gone. They still have the deeds and are satisfied the loan to value ratio is favourable. If the house was to be sold, they would easily get their money back, and that's all they care about. However if you had all the cash up front, you wouldn't need to bother with impressing the lender at all.

There is value to be had in all the paperwork, but its more about giving peace of mind to the client than anything else. That in itself has value. But more value to some people than to others I suppose.

recedite

kceire wrote: »

Also worth noting hat the judges hand was forced by the chief fire officer for Dublin City when it was shown that the whole front facade could in theory fall flat down onto any tenders that arrived at the scene so hence, DFB would not attend.

The point is, the local authority building control officers did not shut it down, nor had they ever inspected the build or certified it as being fit for purpose.
The whole quality control system is based on the threat of private litigation, similar to purchasing other consumer goods.

Totally different in the UK of course, where the local authority inspector would arrive in to inspect the foundations, and visit regularly thereafter.

Priory Hall and also the pyrites foundations incidents were examples of where all the "necessary" certs and paperwork were in place, and at the end of the day, they were all worthless.

When the carpenters were putting in the roof timbers in my house, they had the timber butted up against the masonry chimney for roof stability. I made them redesign it so that there was a gap between the timber and the chimney. Of course they moaned and groaned, and said they had recently done a whole Homebond certified housing estate with timbers resting against the chimneys.

Moral of the story; make sure to build your house well, or employ somebody to oversee that if you can't do it yourself. Either way, you will have peace of mind.

Pat Mustard

recedite wrote: »

As mentioned the photos were for the local authority, so that they would release my security deposit.

It isn't satisfactory evidence of compliance and it's not a useful example.

recedite wrote: »

The lender did not require anything on completion because at that stage the money was long gone.

I disagree with you and I pointed out the actual procedure for new builds on engineers' certs, already.

recedite wrote: »

They still have the deeds and are satisfied the loan to value ratio is favourable. If the house was to be sold, they would easily get their money back, and that's all they care about.

The banks have standard procedures, outlined above.

recedite wrote: »

However if you had all the cash up front, you wouldn't need to bother with impressing the lender at all.

As previously discussed, a cash buyer can buy whatever he wants. However, most buyers have the sense to take the advice to insist on the certification because they may have to sell on to a purchaser who needs a loan.

paddysdream

Penn wrote: »

It's not a case that your house doesn't strictly comply with planning, it's that what you built does not have planning permission from what you've described. This isn't a case of moving a window or changing a finish which may still be in substantial compliance, where no new or greater contravention to the design has occurred. The changes you made are so far outside of what was granted that you do not have planning permission for what you built.

This will cause issues further down the line. Whether through trying to sell it (nobody knows what the future holds and if/why you or your family may need to sell it) or maybe taking out a loan by borrowing against the house etc. Banks will look for certs for the property.

To be honest, I don't know why you bothered applying for planning in the first place considering how far out what you actually built was from what you got permission for. Your grant of planning is worth nothing, and you would have saved yourself the cost of the development contribution fees too.

Well I applied for planning as would there not be questions when someone sees a new house going up and no record or sign of any planning looked for.
Regarding the development fees,they were not too bad at the time,about 900 euro if I recall correctly.Council wrote about 5 years after building and looked for it.
If any question arises in the future then is it not a case of just looking for retention ?Not that difficult to get to be honest.Can you seriously imagine the council doing anything other than granting it?

My point is that there is no actual need to really build strictly what is on the plans (well in a rural area anyways)as there is in reality no checks and even if someone is unfortunate enough to have a neighbour complain etc then whats the worst will happen?

Looking for permission for a 3 bed bungalow and building a 3 storey mansion would be taking it a bit far I will admit but once you are more or less building what you looked for then the council etc don't seem to be too worried.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

The point is, the local authority building control officers did not shut it down, nor had they ever inspected the build or certified it as being fit for purpose.

Commercial Building with a Fire Safety Cert, the Building Control Officer can not shut it down, it was required of DFB to do that under a FSN.

recedite wrote: »

Totally different in the UK of course, where the local authority inspector would arrive in to inspect the foundations, and visit regularly thereafter.

The UK system is not all what it is cracked up to be either, they had recent serious fire safety concerns in apartment blocks, structural concerns with brick facades in schools to name 2.

recedite wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

where the local authority inspector would arrive in to inspect the foundations, and visit regularly thereafter.

This happens in Dublin City.

recedite wrote: »

Priory Hall and also the pyrites foundations incidents were examples of where all the "necessary" certs and paperwork were in place, and at the end of the day, they were all worthless.

We didnt have the strict certs for Stone fill until SR21 Annex E, (IS888) which was in place way after the boom unfortunately.

recedite wrote: »

When the carpenters were putting in the roof timbers in my house, they had the timber butted up against the masonry chimney for roof stability. I made them redesign it so that there was a gap between the timber and the chimney. Of course they moaned and groaned, and said they had recently done a whole Homebond certified housing estate with timbers resting against the chimneys.

The gap is normal practice, shouldnt need re-design as its the way it should be done from the start.
It was a good call to let the carpenters know they were being lazy.

recedite

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It isn't satisfactory evidence of compliance and it's not a useful example.

It was quite satisfactory for the local authority, and exactly what they asked for.
Whether it would be satisfactory or not to you, doesn't actually matter.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I disagree with you..

Fine, its a free country.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The banks have standard procedures, outlined above.

Where have I heard that before??
I think you'll find the banks attitude to their own regulations is somewhat flexible, and depends on what suits the banks best at the time.

recedite

kceire wrote: »

The gap is normal practice, shouldnt need re-design as its the way it should be done from the start.
It was a good call to let the carpenters know they were being lazy.

The gap is proper/best practice, the way they were doing it was normal practice for them, on the the fully certified roofs they were building elsewhere.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

The gap is proper/best practice, the way they were doing it was normal practice for them, on the the fully certified roofs they were building elsewhere.

Wouldnt get away with it in Dublin based on first hand building control inspections. I doubt Homebond would have approved it either based on first hand experience of their inspections.

*But it depends on how the chimney and timbers interact.

Pat Mustard

recedite wrote: »

It was quite satisfactory for the local authority, and exactly what they asked for.
Whether it would be satisfactory or not to you, doesn't actually matter.

We are talking about the necessity for opinions/certs of compliance. Your example of getting a deposit back has nothing to do with that.

What matters is that banks require opinions/certs of compliance, as a rule.

recedite

paddysdream wrote: »

If any question arises in the future then is it not a case of just looking for retention ?Not that difficult to get to be honest.Can you seriously imagine the council doing anything other than granting it?

I've seen that happen a few times, when the buyer asked for compliance documentation and wanted to knock a few quid off the price when it was lacking.
On the other hand, if overall prices in the property market were rising, another cash buyer might come along and offer more than the asking price, and not ask for any documentation. At the end of the day, the price of a house depends on the state of the market, how nice the house is, and the location. Not so much the paperwork attached to it.

recedite

kceire wrote: »

Wouldnt get away with it in Dublin based on first hand building control inspections.

Well that's good to know. Is that all of the Dublin local authorities?
Do they inspect every house, or just a random sampling regime?
Just once, or at several different stage of the build?

The public would obviously prefer if there was some sort of mandatory state inspection regime and enforcement of the regs. Most of them probably think it happens already. But sadly, no.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

Well that's good to know. Is that all of the Dublin local authorities?
Do they inspect every house, or just a random sampling regime?
Just once, or at several different stage of the build?

The public would obviously prefer if there was some sort of mandatory state inspection regime and enforcement of the regs. Most of them probably think it happens already. But sadly, no.

Can't speak for the other LA's but DCC inspect quite a few, and never just once, once their on the site, you'll see them 3-5 times.

The public would love mandatory inspections of course, but who funds it?
If Joe Public wants full compliance, they pay for an architect, surveyor, or engineer, but my experience is that this is where most people skimp and then pay multiples of what one of these professionals would have charged on their bathroom without hesitation!

recedite

kceire wrote: »

The public would love mandatory inspections of course, but who funds it?

They are already paying plenty in planning permission development levies for undisclosed "services".
AFAIK the UK system allows licensed private contracting inspectors to make the inspections where the LA is short staffed or does not want to get too involved. But those guys are totally independent from the builders.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

They are already paying plenty in planning permission development levies for undisclosed "services".
AFAIK the UK system allows licensed private contracting inspectors to make the inspections where the LA is short staffed or does not want to get too involved. But those guys are totally independent from the builders.

Planning contributions are clearly laid out what goes where. It pays for upgrades and improvements in the immediate vicinity of the development. It allows for th increased load the new dwelling will put onto streets, water and infrastructure.

Building Control see nothing from this. They get €30 from the commencement notice fee and I believe €15 of that goes to the LGMA to fund the BCMS system.

In the U.K., the private contractor or home owner pays for the inspections by approved inspectors.

recedite

kceire wrote: »

Planning contributions are clearly laid out what goes where. It pays for upgrades and improvements in the immediate vicinity of the development. It allows for the increased load the new dwelling will put onto streets, water and infrastructure.

Actually no, its never really specified (or ring fenced)
This can be seen most clearly in a one-off rural house, where typically absolutely nothing new is provided by the council outside the private site. No water, no extra roads, no street lighting. Eircom and ESB do actually provide some new infrastructure, but usually don't charge extra for it, because in the long term they are getting a new customer.

Whatever "increased load" people place on society presumably happens when they are born, not when they build a house.
PP levies are simply an opportunistic tax, so some of the money may as well be spent on inspections directly related to the PP.

Gumbo

recedite wrote: »

Actually no, its never really specified (or ring fenced)
This can be seen most clearly in a one-off rural house, where typically absolutely nothing new is provided by the council outside the private site. No water, no extra roads, no street lighting. Eircom and ESB do actually provide some new infrastructure, but usually don't charge extra for it, because in the long term they are getting a new customer.

Whatever "increased load" people place on society presumably happens when they are born, not when they build a house.
PP levies are simply an opportunistic tax, so some of the money may as well be spent on inspections directly related to the PP.

It might not be obvious that the money is spent by the LA to maintain its administrative area but it is.

This document explains a little more than I can.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C32162%2Cen.pdf

Angry bird

kceire wrote: »

It might not be obvious that the money is spent by the LA to maintain its administrative area but it is.

This document explains a little more than I can.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C32162%2Cen.pdf

While I have my own issues with high planning levies, to be clear this is spent, and solely spent in the LA area by the LA, on local services provided by the Council, it does not get spent on wages, expenses or anything else.

mickdw

Just on retrospective certification, I've completed a few over the years and 2 recently. Sales have gone through without issue and to be honest, with heavy exclusions re hidden aspects of the works, the cert was pretty worthless.

recedite

kceire wrote: »

This document explains a little more than I can.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C32162%2Cen.pdf

The document is full of vague platitudes and other political nonsense.
I'm well aware that LA's spend most of their money within their own area (though not all of it)
PP levies are only a small part of their income, they also have income as property tax and other moneys disbursed from central govt.

My point is, there is no need to place an unnecessary extra tax on planning permission which hits people at the very time in their lives when they are most severely stretched financially. If there was a modest fee that went directly towards the cost of processing the applications, and for the inspections to make sure the houses were built properly, that would be fair enough.

Handsandtools

Bottom line is, there's no building inspectors in Ireland.

BryanF

Whistle

Doorcase

Building house to building regs but it is a opt out self build. Going without banks in hope ill get it built in another 2 years. So do i need the completion cert or not. House will not be sold by me or children and because of location unlikely will ever be sold. So the question is do i need it and will there be no issue without it?

Angry bird

If planning levies (general ones) were to be removed then the LPT would need to rise to compensate, probably fairer. The planning application fee for houses is multiples lower than NI for example, 65 bills v's 850 bills off the top of my head and from memory this was to rise to 450 bills per Colm McCarthy's recommendations, 1 amongst many that did not happen.