Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

hi all. Im a qualified architectural technologist since 2002. Unfortunately our course in lit wasn't recognised by the RIAI. So ive my 10 years done and hope to do the entrance exam this year as ive my own business for the last 8 years and its going well. But is it worth my time and money getting recognised by the RIAI or will i go with the CIAT which is best. Can architectural technologist carry out the new ammendments. Sorry my head was under a stone for the last year.

4Sticks wrote: »

AT's cannot take part under the new regulations. That's disastrous for people like you and for the consumer too who will find their options limited.

Is it possible to carry out the planning and design stage and let the engineer take over from commencement notice stage on. So what are my options so as a self employed AT. Just design extension under 40m2

Supertech wrote: »

Until some recognition is given to the AT grade in RIAI or to MCIAT I wouldn't bother with either, and I don't mean this in the snotty, cynical way it sounds !

The RIAI at present has no policy on what it wants from its Arch Tech members, and until that clarity is given any time that you put into studying for the AT entrance exam is, in my opinion, time that would be better spent on a route to qualification in one of the registered professions - Architecture, Engineering or Building Surveying.

Similar for CIAT. Despite a valiant effort by CIAT to represent its Chartered members, it has been ignored at every turn and remain outside the loop. It is difficult to see a way into the system for architectural technologists as independent practitioners at this stage. The one advantage for CIAT is that their international reciprocal agreements with other professional organisations may be of some use in trying to assess the Building Surveyors Register.

Architectural Technologists can only provide ancillary certs under the new system.

Thanks for the great advice. Much appreciated. Is it possible in your opinion to carry out the planning stages with full spec and let an engineer carry out construction stage under the new amendment.

Supertech wrote: »

The wording on the last version of the design certs I saw required the signature of one of the 'troika'

In theory, I guess if you had an arrangement with an engineer it might still be possible to bring a project through planning. However, insurance will be the issue, and of course finding an engineer willing to accept the additional risk.

God this is a real pain. Just when I was starting to get established and a good name and nice work coming up. I suppose I'll have to look at a part time courses in building surveying. So basically the last 10 years was a waste of time

Supertech wrote: »

If you have ten years experience cosatron, it might be worth looking at either Technical Assessment or the ARAE route to registration as an architect to see if you meet the requirements. There is also the possibility of registering as a building surveyor. As far as I'm aware, no truly 'part time' courses exist for either profession. While there are 5 schools of architecture, there is just one accredited Building Surveying course in the country. There are some options with part time routes based on distance learning through courses in the UK, but no Irish based solution for those of us excluded from the provision of the Amendments.

If you have work on the boards which is of a significant scale, might it be worth investigating a partnership with a registered professional while working on a route which will secure registration for yourself ? I would imagine that once the system kicks in, some of the educational institutions will identify the gap in the market and look at providing courses with recognition for prior learning in either Building Surveying or Architecture or both, but this will obviously take time.

Thanks for your reply and help. I'll keep you updated on how I get on as I'm sure there are a good few people in the same boat as me

I'm an Architectural Technician and Im working away as normal.
I feel we will still have a role to play after March 2014, initially as Ancillary Certifiers, there will defnitely be work in that sphere.
Some time later when reality hits home, big Phil will realise the error of his ways and I'm sure our role will expand again.
Its not unheard of for this government to do uturns :-)

4Sticks wrote: »

Yes and afterwards too. What's changing is that AT's cannot sign building regulation related certificates from March 2014.



Yes. And one could renovate much larger existing areas too. Another flaw in the regs imo . There is plenty of scope to undertake significant works here which ought to be included in the scope of the regulations.

Thanks 4Sticks,

I am currently working with an Architectural Technician to design and submit the plan application for the 35 sq mt extension,

the plan permission will be granted after March 1st 2014 (hopefully),
the work will start after March 1st 2014,

Please let me know what should I be aware of the current and new building regulation changes.

jython98 wrote: »

Please let me know what should I be aware of the current and new building regulation changes.

You can't rely on the internet for that. You need retain a professional.

Except that I believe that even in the case of works not directly affected that the lending institutions will "follow the lead" of the regulations. They will require certifications of a similar nature and from only one the the "holy trinity"

DOCARCH wrote: »

If the extension is less than 40 m.sq. (whether or not planning permission is required), the situation as it currently exists applies. No need to appoint an 'assigned certifier', etc. Commencement notice to be submitted (the same commencement as we have now).

So...in effect we will now have a two tier Building Control system!

Thanks DOCARCH.

I got my PI Insurance quote back. It's up 12% on last year.

The quote says the insurance market in Ireland has tightened furthe with some insurers pulling out.

Some companies apparently are also not renewing cover to companies that represent risk. There are a lot of claims out there is comparison to before 2007.

No mention of the new regs or building control.

I will be calling them to discuss the legislative changes happening before I pay the premium.

sydthebeat wrote: »

the problem with this approach is that

1. all the subcontractors are NOT required to provide certification for the work they do.

2. The engineer / architect / surveyor is being FORCED to provide unadulterated certification for the work ALL persons carry out on site.

Therefore unless the engineer is employed to be on site pretty much all of the time to oversee all the subbies (ie what a contractor does) then it is seriously madness to expect any professional to certify work carried out by others on a day to day basis.
Regulations have become so specific that now; every process and piece of material used in a house build has to comply with some regulation and standard, therefore every process and material needs to be inspected to check its certification and installation.

If any other occupational group - for example the farmers, the teachers - was being hobbled and hamstrung by proposed new government legislation there would be organised, high-profile protest. Where is the opposition? Surely the building industry has the benefit of closely-interwoven networks of trades?

"...some of the professional bodies are totally opposed to what I am trying to do, most of those professional bodies were equally culpable to developers and builders of the shoddy workmanship. They must take responsibility for that. I'm empowering those professionals now to sign their name in a mandatory way and certify that the works are done to a high standard, that they stand over what they are signing"

Hogans words in interview with Matt Cooper. So all that is wrong with building control was/is the architects and engineers .

He talks of equal responsibilities ( of most parties - he neatly omits local authority building control officers who will continue to draw publicly funded salaries - think of your property taxes now - and remain unknown on sites ) when putting all responsibility onto architects and engineers and thereby insisting everything will be fine.

Human nature being what it is this means all other parties to the build , knowing that ultimate responsibility for the certification of their works rests with someone else , will tend to relax and hide behind the arch / engineers certification. Building is very very competitive. Clients always want more than they can afford and builders / subbies can never be cheap enough. the conscientious and diligent builder / electrician / plumber etc will find themselves "too expensive" vs those who can -legally- take a view they are legally excused responsibilities under these new regulations.

As sure as night follows day this is what will happen to standards in building when builders and subbies are no longer responsible for the work they do. And clients will pay for this the most in more ways than one. You will be paying for more expensive ash trays on your motor bikes.

strongback wrote: »

The DOE are basically asking consultants to provide something similar to a house guarantee scheme such as Homebond.

Remember all that this ship crashed on the rocky pyrites issue. Homebond have yet to state why their much lauded "structural gaurentee" won't pay for any of this damage. I conclude it is because it would clean them out. PI insurance will NOT be made commercially available to meet the risks being now imposed on designers and certifiers. This is and will continue to be a problem for everybody who may buy build or simply just use a building , not just architects and engineers.

So anyone , Hogan included , who dismisses reactions to the new regulations here and elsewhere as the professionals just "whinging" does not understand the massive con trick being pulled by the Minister. He will be drawing his - payed by you - pension when this all becomes apparent.