[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Regulations will come into effect on March 1st 2014 and the Code of Practice to accompany them will, we understand be published by the Department in the coming months.
strongback wrote: » For that to happen collateral warranties would have to be signed. These are never used on houses in my experience. There is a defects liability period with most construction work, generally after 6 years the designer is no longer liable to claims, I think it is much less for builders but I'm not sure what it is exactly.
strongback wrote: » I don't see how self builders will find the procedures difficult to understand. They set themselves up as a sole trader which will involve a small accountants fee to make a return. They get planning drawings done, there's also nothing stopping them doing the drawings themselves if they want to take that on. They can familiarize themselves with the building regs, use guidance documents and the Homebond book to ensure they build in accordance with the regs. They then submit as built drawings. The only time they explicitly need a professional is to to do inspections and sign off which is the way it has always been with bank..
dathi wrote: » you are now arguing about "the ministers" opinion .how much weight will "the ministers" opinion hold in a court? if and when there is a legal challenge or dispute over this legislation . it will be solely based on the wording in si 9 of 2014 if it not in there it not going to happen
4Sticks wrote: » Contract vs Common Law. Tears before bedtime - wait and see.
strongback wrote: » I see it as more black and white. The building either complies with the regs or it doesn't. If it doesn't comply a cert isn't signed or it is written into the cert that non-compliant work exists.
strongback wrote: » Phil Hogan confirmed that, he didn't need to.
strongback wrote: » I have to say there are some serious doomsday scenarios being created in the furtive minds of the self-builders.
Speedsie wrote: » Hi, I'm about to start renovating an existing 19th century house. The roof needs work amongst other items, but basically the works are renovation, not building. There will be no extension. I've been told time & time again that the works will need to comply with the new Building Control regulations. But looking here, it seems it it for: a) New Builds b) Extension over 40 sq m Am I being made adhere to more than I need to (bearing in mind that I'm already having to comply with a protected structure & all that entails). Thanks! Speeds
strongback wrote: » I see it as more black and white. The building either complies with the regs or it doesn't.
In the case of material alterations or changes of use of existing buildings, the adoption without modification of the guidance in this document may not, in all circumstances, be appropriate. In particular, the adherence to guidance, including codes, standards or technical specifications, intended for application to new work may be unduly restrictive or impracticable. Buildings of architectural or historical interest are especially likely to give rise to such circumstances. In these situations, alternative approaches based on the principles contained in the document may be more relevant and should be considered.
sydthebeat wrote: » So can you see the likelyhood of any facility to "write in" non compliance issues? I don't. The cert doesn't appear to be qualifiable, have you information to the contrary?
4Sticks wrote: » How naive. And yet Hogan's SI tends to support you in this. And this notwithstanding that every TGD contains this text Thus the nonsense of having in all cases to legally certify what is in effect in many cases an educated value judgement. The legals will dine well on this. :pac::pac::pac:
strongback wrote: » There will most definitely have to be a way of certifying houses that have minor non compliance issues. If a builder makes a mistake and the floor to ceiling height is 2.35m instead of 2.4 and the certifier does not pick it up until its too late I hardly expect the house owner will be expected to knock the house down.
archtech wrote: » I would imagine that's the reason why there will be A Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Works, so that issue such as the above doesn't happen. There's no excuse for a competent builder making such an error, particularly if a proper detailed set of coordinated drawings are furnished. Regular detailed Site inspections by the assigned certifier are going to be necessary under the regs anyone who thinks otherwise is in the land of the fairies. If clients are not prepared to pay for regular site inspections, they have to accept that they may not get certification at the end of the project due to non compliance. The penny wise pound foolish mindset comes to mind. Whats your defination in terms of minor non compliance? 20mm in the height as opposed to 15mm in what should be a part m compliant door threshold. The minimum clear width of a fire exit door been too narrow by 25mm perhaps etc. Your opinion may differ from mine and that of a BCA or judge. I won't like to have to be defending myself in court whereby a dimension fell short of minimum detailed in the guidance document I used to prima facia demonstrate compliance with an element of the building regulations. The only way of addressing issues of non compliance and covering oneself will be applying to the BCA for a relaxisation or dispensation.
strongback wrote: » The inspector will only be visiting the site periodically so the builder could do something wrong and be oblivious to it. By the time the inspector sees it the problem could cost thousands to undo.
archtech wrote: » This is and has been the problem, particularly in the self-build* situation where there is seldom a structured approach of regular site meetings or site inspections, very often due to the fact that there's no budget for them. I don't see why if a builder does something wrong, having been provided with the correct information that s/he should not be made address the matter at his/her own expense, its a standard condition of any standard building contract. The bottom line is certifiers are going to have to get stuck in on site and check and record things from now on site. From a PI perspective I can see PI companies looking in future to see certifiers protocols for inspection and possibly records of inspections etc as part of renewals.* definition of self build- individual building (own house) either by way of direct labour or via building contractor
4 I confirm that the plans, calculations, specifications, ancillary certificates and particulars included in the schedule to the Commencement Notice to which this certificate is relevant, and which have been prepared exercising reasonable skill, care and diligence by me, and by other members of the design team and specialist designers whose design activities I have coordinated, have been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations insofar as they apply to the building or works concerned.
strongback wrote: » The problem is the certifier will never be there all the time so my view is the builder will have to up his game and learn the regs and how they are applied.
strongback wrote: » This new wording gives a bit of wiggle room to designers and certifiers should there by some error arising provided they followed a reasonable approach.
strongback wrote: » How much time do designers spend trying to fix problems on site? Quite a bit I would say.
atech wrote: » The interview on the Thursday was much more interesting; listen from 35mins on; the councillor at the start said the self-builder can assign themselves as builder on the cert. At 41mins a woman came on and correctly said they have to be a director or principle of a company. He said he got clarification on this from the ministers office and was going to contact her directly later to confirm. Would love to know if she heard back from him- doubt it somehow.
strongback wrote: » The clause in the building regs you refer to has little relevance to a self built house project.
strongback wrote: » That clause refers to specific types of problems outside of what is covered in the regs. Engineers, of all kinds, work outside the recommendations of the building regs quite often particularly on challenging buildings. The reason engineers can do this is because they can demonstrate the appropriateness of their solution through calculations and drawing.
strongback wrote: » The reason the regs are so adhered to is because they provide a way of doing things that has been considered, agreed and written down.
strongback wrote: » Anyway that reminds me I better call my solicitor and have him on standby for the 1st of March, there could be an onslaught. :pac:
4Sticks wrote: » Unless the self builder renovates a house whilst extending it by +40m2 .
4Sticks wrote: » Drawings and calculations are prepared by architects too in the preparation of Fire Safety Certificate applications . And disabled Access Certificate Applications . Other circumstances where the texts of the RegulationTGD's are negotiated - or perhaps better to say - where an interpretation of those texts is presented formally to a local authority official to agree with or seek amendments to. Sometimes even with new buildings , not just existing altered , it is deemed appropriate to depart from those texts. So not black and white really . Considered educated value judgments.
4Sticks wrote: » They (the regs - or more apt to say the TGD texts ) offer guidance it is hoped will cover most cases. Where formal approvals are required to be obtained from the local authority agreed deviations from Part B ( Fire ) and Part M ( Access for all ) is possible. Shades of grey creep in.
4Sticks wrote: » Myself I am waiting to hear the plaintiff cries on both the Joe Duffy + Pat Kenny radio shows.
Hairy mellon wrote: » Here are a few stats boosted off the Bregs Blog discussion site. SI.9 blows Irish Water away for incompetence: The following table is based on housing output 10,500 units completed in 2012* Out of 10,500 house completions approximately 60% are self-builds. According to industry estimates a typical house may incur €5,000 extra in professional fees with self-builds incurring an additional €18,000 on top of this for contractors fees and costs. Residential Sector- additional cost of SI.9 6,300 self builds x €23k extra = €144.9m (18k each to contractors, €5k to professionals) 4200 normal houses x €5k each = €21m (€5k to professionals) Total residential new build direct cost €165.9m** **This excludes qualifying residential refurbishments and extensions over 40sqm. This cost excludes the cost of si9 on capital and social projects that, depending on who you consult, could add up to 5% or more depending on type of project, level of complexity etc. That is an average of 5% on the cost of every school, hospital ward, social housing unit built from March 1st onwards. We have a capital project allocation of approximately €3.2bn for this year and if we discount half for non-qualifying projects (roads, transport, power etc) then various government departments could be looking at direct and indirect costs of up to €80m annually (based on 3% mid-range extra cost) Potentially SI.9 of 2014 could cost the industry, taxpayer and consumer €250m annually. The projected €2bn saving in irish water will be squandered in 8 years. With no benefit to the consumer. The residents of Priory Hall, the authors of the Pyrite Report, The National Consumer Agency and the IPFMA and other consumer groups all concur in previous statements and submissions that BCAR SI.9 will do little to improve the rights of the consumer. The RIAI, the registration body for architects, have called on this legislation to be deferred as recently as 15th January 2014 citing that the industry is not ready and the regulation is not in the best interest of the consumer. * (Source: Forfas report: Table 2.12 Value and volume of construction output, 2010-2012E (page 16); Source: DKM Economic Consultants analysis for Forfás, 2012)
