Can an architectural technician be PSDP on a simple extension

antiskeptic

If having a straightforward single storey extension build which doesn't need planning is an architectural technician qualified to be PSDP or do you need to employ and architect?

Indeed, can a competent builder be a PSDP?

sydthebeat

absolutely a technician can... once they are insured to do so.

Id argue that a technician is more qualified to hold this role than an architect, as it requires an investigation into the technical aspects of the building process.

a builder can only be a PSDP is they have some input into the "design"aspect.... which generally they dont.
the hold the PSCS role

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

absolutely a technician can... once they are insured to do so.

Id argue that a technician is more qualified to hold this role than an architect, as it requires an investigation into the technical aspects of the building process.

a builder can only be a PSDP is they have some input into the "design"aspect.... which generally they dont.
the hold the PSCS role

Thanks Syd. It seems strange to me that a builder who knows how deep foundations need to and what quality concrete goes in and how a wall is to be built knows everything the person telling him what to knows. For a simple structure that is.

Isnt the arch element superfluous in such cases?

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks Syd. It seems strange to me that a builder who knows how deep foundations need to and what quality concrete goes in and how a wall is to be built knows everything the person telling him what to knows. For a simple structure that is.

Isnt the arch element superfluous in such cases?

for a simply structure.... sure.

if the builder is happy that in essence hes "designing" the construction specification and hes happy to take on the role then yes.

The PSDP must:

• Advise the Client of the requirements of the Construction Regulations and the roles of PSDP & PSCS.
• Identify hazards arising from the design or from the technical, organisational, planning or time related aspects of the project;
• Where possible, eliminate the hazards or reduce the risks;
• Communicate necessary control measures, design assumptions or remaining risks to the PSCS so they can be dealt with in the safety and health plan;
• Ensure that the work of designers is coordinated to ensure safety;
• Organise co-operation between designers;
• Prepare a written Preliminary Safety and Health Plan for any project where construction will take more than 500 person days or 30 working days or there is a particular risk and deliver it to the client prior to tender;
• Corodinate the preparation of Temporary Work Certification:
• Prepare a Safety file for the completed structure and give it to the client;
• Notify the Health & Safety Authority and the client of non-compliance with any written directions issued.
• The PSDP may issue directions to designers or contractors or others.

antiskeptic

Thanks for the clarification. It would appear from the above that no drawings are required. The designer communicating design assumptions would see the builder talking to himself in his head

Gumbo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks Syd. It seems strange to me that a builder who knows how deep foundations need to and what quality concrete goes in and how a wall is to be built knows everything the person telling him what to knows. For a simple structure that is.

Isnt the arch element superfluous in such cases?

A builder doesn’t know how deep foundations have to be, quality of concrete etc
He would be assuming this based on previous works he’s done.

The only person that knows is the designer following an on site ground conditional survey.

Gumbo

Will you require certification on completion?
Compliance with the exempted planning regulations?
Compliance with building regulations?

antiskeptic

kceire wrote: »

Will you require certification on completion?
Compliance with the exempted planning regulations?
Compliance with building regulations?

The person who I'm giving advice to will have to make that decision - there is attraction in going the full monty in terms of pro/partial involvment. On the other hand, they have a limited budget and its a simple extension

I'll just attempt to present the options, pros and cons.

(If it were me (and they are not me) I know such certification (where the term 'substantially conforms to building regs' appears regularily and where the extension does conform to planning (exemption)) can be obtained post facto for €350)

antiskeptic

kceire wrote: »

A builder doesn’t know how deep foundations have to be, quality of concrete etc
He would be assuming this based on previous works he’s done.

The only person that knows is the designer following an on site ground conditional survey.

Would you recommend a ground condition survey for a small extension to the rear of a house in an urban setting?

Gumbo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you recommend a ground condition survey for a small extension to the rear of a house in an urban setting?

Usually the professional that is inspecting and signing off on the works will do this as part of their role.

Urban setting doesn't really change anything, my house is in an urban setting and we had to go down just over 1m to hit the same level as the existing foundations. I've witnessed builders di down 500mm and just pour without any consideration to the pressure then placed above the existing foundation.

*Just to be clear, I don't offer these services myself, I am involved in this exact area, but do not offer these services to the public. Just so as to rule out any thoughts from posters that I may be trying to drum up business*

antiskeptic

kceire wrote: »

Usually the professional that is inspecting and signing off on the works will do this as part of their role.

Urban setting doesn't really change anything, my house is in an urban setting and we had to go down just over 1m to hit the same level as the existing foundations. I've witnessed builders di down 500mm and just pour without any consideration to the pressure then placed above the existing foundation.

*Just to be clear, I don't offer these services myself, I am involved in this exact area, but do not offer these services to the public. Just so as to rule out any thoughts from posters that I may be trying to drum up business*

I'm assuming a decent builder in action. Now I know one could say you need the professional (and his insurance) to backstop the builder being decent.

That strikes me as formulaic and ignoring of the fact that historically there are lots of longstanding houses built without this level of professional input. The pro might (or might not? Ive sen shocking work) add certainty, but in the case of simple structures (in this case utilising existing party walls in a non structural way), one can rightfully consider the cost implications for dotting i's and crossing t's.

In this field (as in so many others) the movement towards ever increasing control of risk brings with it a downside. Cost in this case.

I'm reminded of an chat my engineer uncle had with the head of Boeing (a topical discussion, given recent events). "We can make an aircraft that effectively can't crash - not through technical error, not through human error. But then no one would be able to afford to fly"

There is always cost/benefit to consider as Boeing consider it and I'm suspicious that the current trend is tipping the balance


Although I take your disclosure on lack of vested interest, I wouldn't exclude a global vested interest from professions gaining from a heavily regulated environment.

Witness the strictures on domestic electrical work in recent years. Yet if you look back to how many people have been killed by electrical faults in domestic infrastructure (as opposed to their working on their own appliances) over the last 20 years, you find its one or two.

The Boeing tale asks whether its worth all the extra electrical-work expense borne by the nation, for the sake of a couple of lives.

For lives are costed: eg the health service considering a medicine.

Gumbo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming a decent builder in action. Now I know one could say you need the professional (and his insurance) to backstop the builder being decent.

That strikes me as formulaic and ignoring of the fact that historically there are lots of longstanding houses built without this level of professional input. The pro might (or might not? Ive sen shocking work) add certainty, but in the case of simple structures (in this case utilising existing party walls in a non structural way), one can rightfully consider the cost implications for dotting i's and crossing t's.

In this field (as in so many others) the movement towards ever increasing control of risk brings with it a downside. Cost in this case.

I'm reminded of an chat my engineer uncle had with the head of Boeing (a topical discussion, given recent events). "We can make an aircraft that effectively can't crash - not through technical error, not through human error. But then no one would be able to afford to fly"

There is always cost/benefit to consider as Boeing consider it and I'm suspicious that the current trend is tipping the balance


Although I take your disclosure on lack of vested interest, I wouldn't exclude a global vested interest from professions gaining from a heavily regulated environment.

Witness the strictures on domestic electrical work in recent years. Yet if you look back to how many people have been killed by electrical faults in domestic infrastructure (as opposed to their working on their own appliances) over the last 20 years, you find its one or two.

The Boeing tale asks whether its worth all the extra electrical-work expense borne by the nation, for the sake of a couple of lives.

For lives are costed: eg the health service considering a medicine.

Sounds like your mind is made up.
Enjoy the process.

antiskeptic

kceire wrote: »

Sounds like your mind is made up.
Enjoy the process.

Its not so much that my mind is made up. Rather, I'm too long in the tooth to be impressed by the 'on first sight' strictures implied by 'certification' and 'ground conditions'. These ought to be nuanced entities rather than, as they frequently are, things put in place to instill fear and concern. As if without them you are in serious danger of a hiding to nothing.

I saw my own industry (manufacturing) brought to ruination by the gradual but inexorable introduction of unnecessary (insurance co induced in case) health & safety / documenting everything red tape.

And so have a certain reticence to partake