Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

1…1011131516…32

Comments

  • #602
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    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.

    Contract vs Common Law. Tears before bedtime - wait and see.


  • #603
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    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..

    You will fit in well around here :D

    It's not rocket science after all !


  • #604
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    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

    Agreed . Totally.


  • #605
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    4Sticks wrote: »
    Contract vs Common Law. Tears before bedtime - wait and see.


    In terms of the law whats the difference between what we have now and the new legislation?

    I can't imagine there are too many cases brought to court 20 years after a house is built because there are draughty windows or the roof leaks.

    It's always been buyer beware when it comes to buying a house which is why the purchasers solicitor always looks for a condition survey of the house to be carried out prior to completing the sale. Whoever does the house survey is providing insurance.

    I just can't see the mechanism were a householder can legally come after the builder after a 10 or 20 years unless there is a problem that is seriously affecting the structure.

    If people are that worried they will make a critical error when building their house they could always employ a professional or take a leaf out of the developers book and set up a limited company to create a bit of distance.


    I have to say there are some serious doomsday scenarios being created in the furtive minds of the self-builders. ;)


  • #606
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,997 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    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.

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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


    Building regulations cover all domestic construction whether its a new apartment block, a new developer built house, a new house extension or a self build. That obvious and is contained in SI9 of 2014.

    The difference now being that drawings need to be submitted and new certs signed for new builds and extensions over 40m2. That and Building Control are much less liable for building problems that happen down the line.

    Phil Hogan confirmed that, he didn't need to.

    I get the feeling the self-builders would like very limited regulation so they can get on with doing whatever they want with their money. We've seen bungalow bliss and we've see the mock Georgian pile of bricks as we drove along a country road, what will some of these genii come up with next.

    Don't get me wrong I'm all for vernacular housing but how often to we seen it from self-builders.


  • #608
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    Phil Hogan confirmed that, he didn't need to.

    We were not ALL in the know . You know.


  • #609
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    I have to say there are some serious doomsday scenarios being created in the furtive minds of the self-builders. ;)

    When all they need do is this ;)


  • #610
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    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

    You will need to comply with Building Regulations , but not these new Building Control regulations.

    Good news for you but a flaw in the ministers new legislation in my opinion.


  • #611
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    I see it as more black and white. The building either complies with the regs or it doesn't.

    How naive. And yet Hogan's SI tends to support you in this. And this notwithstanding that every TGD contains this text
    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.

    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:


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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?


    I agree I don't see any room to write in non compliance issues on the cert.

    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.

    There will have to be a way to deal with minor non compliance issues. I suspect that will come out in the wash. The DOE were very black and white in their approach until recently but they seem to be softening on the zero tolerance attitude a bit because I suspect they recognized the blunt approach was unworkable.


  • #613
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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:


    The clause in the building regs you refer to has little relevance to a self built house project. 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.

    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. A judge will be more confident in an architect if they have followed the regulations. Its exactly the same with building standards.


    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:


  • #614
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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


    Did you go for planning permission or make a declaration of your intentions to the council.

    In my experience the council take great interest in protected structures and normally make the house owner jump through a few hoops involving employing heritage specialists etc.


  • #615
    archtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,046 ✭✭✭archtech


    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.

    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.


  • #616
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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.


    You make good points and I'm in agreement with what you are saying. The mechanism for dealing with small dimensional errors or other problems is something I would like to see explained.

    Genuine mistakes happen from time to time, there has to be a way to deal with these. 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.

    Small builders who don't have a great knowledge of the regs have always been a problem particularly in domestic construction. Their knowledge needs to improve a lot. The fact builders now have to sign certs is a good thing in my view.

    On the penny wise pound foolish thing how often do domestic clients appreciate what designers do for them? I prefer commercial work because I can charge the fee needed for me to do the job. Its almost impossible to charge domestic clients the proper fee for a project as they just won't wear it, unless of course the client is wealthy and is used to employing professionals. The clients who end up with the best homes in the vast majority of cases appreciate that professionals are a good thing and can add value.


  • #617
    archtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,046 ✭✭✭archtech


    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.

    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


  • #618
    ht9zni1gs28crp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,011 ✭✭✭ht9zni1gs28crp


    So as a self builder, planning achieved, waiting to start its advisable that I get the commencement notice in over the next week? Im an AT, with an engineer onboard already to sign off stages, along with my Part L compliance and Passive requirements outsourced...


  • #619
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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

    I have no doubt the procedure for checking and recording will tighten up. Personally I have always filled in short one page site visit reports, I learned to do this as the first company I ever worked for had this as a policy.

    I also have discussions with builders throughout the job about how they are going to do things before they get stuck in. It's too late when the building is built.

    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. I believe the CIS are to run courses on the regs for builders, I think these should be compulsory.

    The new wording appears to me to have been written by insurers as these were the group who said the original new amendments were uninsurable. 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. Insurers in my experience are happy to sell insurance and will only request a company have acted reasonable after somebody has threaten to make a claim against them.

    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.


    In an ideal world everybody involved in the construction of a house should do everything very correctly and then there would be no mistakes. This rarely happens though in any job. People are human not machines and some parties to a project are maybe inexperienced or just not very good full stop, anyone who has worked in a large office could tell you who they wouldn't have designing their house. How much time do designers spend trying to fix problems on site? Quite a bit I would say. I have heard it said many times that the construction industry contains people without training and who lack a professional approach. Hopefully the Act will target these people.

    Trying to sort problems out on projects is most peoples approach. Nobody really wants to go to court.


  • #620
    archtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,046 ✭✭✭archtech


    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.

    Its up to the certifier to ensure that the required relevant information is available to the builder and then the builder to follow it. Its no good depending on the builder knowing the regs in isolation, each job is different as you will know and a particular u-value of a wall may be sufficient on one project to comply with Part L while on another project it may not. A builder isn't going to know that.

    One thing that is for sure, is some builders need to learn to read and follow drawings and ask for information if they don't know rather than going off and doing their own thing.
    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.

    Time will tell if it does, but not until its too late and a certifier is before a judge who will define a "reasonable approach".
    strongback wrote: »
    How much time do designers spend trying to fix problems on site? Quite a bit I would say.
    Because very often a potential problem is just kicked down the line and nobody is bothered or has given it sufficient time in sorting it out at Design/Tender stage ever before it goes on site.


  • #621
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    Self build cancelled - Radio interview


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    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.


  • #623
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    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.

    Interesting, please report back on this!!
    Where was this and what were the circumstances.


  • #624
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    The clause in the building regs you refer to has little relevance to a self built house project.

    Unless the self builder renovates a house whilst extending it by +40m2 .
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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:

    Myself I am waiting to hear the plaintiff cries on both the Joe Duffy + Pat Kenny radio shows.


  • #625
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Pat & joe.. :)


  • #626
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    self-building will not be possible once the planned register of builders is introduced in 2015

    in the interim the minister has the conundrum of regulating all others involved, engineers, building surveyors and architects while allowing the one sector that the new regulations were targeted at, builders, remain as is.

    The "fudge" is to have the phrase "to be signed by a principal or director of a building firm" under the area for signature on the builder's completion cert in SI.9. It's there in black and white in SI.9: one of the callers in that radio clip had it in her hand.

    Self-building will not be possible after march 1st and unfortunately to smooth over the current political fallout resultant from the IASOB campaign has suggested this is not the case.

    The director of the CIF housing division on radio has confirmed that self-builders will fin the regulations "difficult" and will no longer be able to nominate themselves.

    Unfortunately this uncertainty will only manifest itself on completion- ordinary people will commence self-builds out of financial necessity, submit commencement documentation, receive no notifications or inspections from local authorities only to have the completion documentation invalidated. Not a big deal you might say- owners can still move in. Correct.

    However problems will arise when trying to either re-finance or sell the property and the solicitor will be looking for the validation documentation from the local authority, de facto evidence of compliance.

    Currently there is no provision for retrospective validation. This will be a big problem. I certainly would not trust any statements by the minister if I was embarking on a self-build, for many the biggest investment of their lives.

    Self-builders are the silent majority here- over 60% of all housing completed are self-builds. The average home will cost €5k more to build with additional paperwork under SI.9 with no consumer benefit. The average self-build will cost €23k more under SI.9. It's a complete disgrace- the CIF will have 5,000 more homes to build at the expense of ordinary citizens doing their best trying to maximise their finances. They will be getting a €115m windfall out o the self-builders come march. Business as usual....


  • #627
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    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)


  • #628
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    and if you dont believe it here's the head of housing in the CIF on a podcast recently talking about the demise of the self-builder:

    http://media.radiokerry.ie/mediamanager/embed/player/podcasts/9/item/17585


  • #629
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    SI.9 page 20 is the builders certificate on completion

    Signature: ————————————————————————— Date: ————————
    (to be signed by a Principal or Director of a building company only)

    http://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/Divisions/civil/Building-Control-(Amendment)-Regulations-2014-–-SI-No-9-of-2014.pdf


  • #630
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    4Sticks wrote: »
    Unless the self builder renovates a house whilst extending it by +40m2 .

    I'll expand on my point as as it seems to have been misinterpreted or possibly subverted. Very few houses require anything other than standard details that comply with the minimum standards of the regs as set out in the guidance documents. I would say more than 95% of houses fall into this category. Any house that doesn't fall into this category such as protected structures should not be touched by untrained, unknowledgeable self builders. The fabric of our heritage should not be touched by people unless they have a deep and proven appreciation for what they are doing.

    BTW nothing is stopping a self builder building a 40m2+ extension. If a lay man has a site and he wants to self build his house he would want to be soft in the head not to do it just because there are some changes to legislation. There is always a way to get things done. If anybody thinks self builds are not going to continue to happen they are deluded.
    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.

    It's still black and white. Comply with the building regulations or agree a dispensation or relaxation. Doesn't get more black and white.

    This is nothing new and the new legislation won't change it.

    To be honest a lot of this thread seems like semantics. It would be better if people who have a real grievance focused on the real problems with the Act that effect them instead of trying to jump on any litttle problem without considering if it is actually a problem or not.

    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.

    There isn't much interpretation needed with the regs. The shades of grey creep in when when people want to do things that do not comply with the regs. My point, which you ignored, was that people follow the regs diligently because it allows them to demonstrate to an insurer or judge that they have complied with government legislation should they have to defend themselves following a problem.

    4Sticks wrote: »

    Myself I am waiting to hear the plaintiff cries on both the Joe Duffy + Pat Kenny radio shows.

    When some people are listening to Joe and Pat I'll be designing building and signing certs.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    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)


    It's approximately 6300 self build houses a year based on the 60% of all houses (it will be much less than 60% when the house building sector gets off its knees). 6300 is not really a huge figure which is probably why the DOE didn't give much consideration into how it should be regulated. I am sure self builds will be accommodated, there's too many councilors and TD's that won't want to upset their electorate.


  • #632
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    and if you dont believe it here's the head of housing in the CIF on a podcast recently talking about the demise of the self-builder:

    http://media.radiokerry.ie/mediamanager/embed/player/podcasts/9/item/17585


    There's a lot of jockeying for position going on, The CIF are obviously going to try to generate more work for their members. They should really be concentrating on getting their new register of contractors filled and then training them.


  • #633
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Self-builders are the silent majority here- over 60% of all housing completed are self-builds. The average home will cost €5k more to build with additional paperwork under SI.9 with no consumer benefit. The average self-build will cost €23k more under SI.9. It's a complete disgrace- the CIF will have 5,000 more homes to build at the expense of ordinary citizens doing their best trying to maximise their finances. They will be getting a €115m windfall out o the self-builders come march. Business as usual....


    Self builders are really only the silent majority because there has been practically nothing happening in the house building sector for five or six years. I've notice a few new housing estates under construction in the last few months so the 60% figure will be less this year.

    I don't agree there won't be any consumer benefit. I think better houses will be built with fewer problems. Self builders are poor when it comes to compliance, in fact I would say certifying self built house will be seen as the type of work designers are least interested in as they have to work with untrained people. Nobody wants to sign their name to a house if they don't trust the builders competence.

    I think the figures being quoted for professionals fees may be misleading. Has it been explained why a contractor built house will cost an extra €5000 while a self build will cost an extra €23,000.

    It's difficult to say what the extra fees will be, the market will dictate that. The extra cost is in preparing construction level drawings in my view. There has always been the cost of site visits as the bank required these for stage payments. My view is when it all settles down the cost of the construction drawings on standard house builds will be nowhere near €23K. My guess off the top of my head is the cost of the construction drawings will be in the range of 2.5% to 4% of the budget on say a €200,000 self build. Inspection visits couldn't be much more €250 each and some practices will do these for considerable less. A problem can be that extra site inspections are required on a self build because the self builder is learning on the job.


  • #634
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    ordinary people will commence self-builds out of financial necessity,
    .


    When I have read t the above view it doesn't sit right with me. I have seen the same thing expressed by different people quite a few times. As far as I'm concerned anyone who gets to build their own house is living the dream. And they are not paupers.


  • #635
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    There is a difficulty here. Unfortunately due to conflicting interpretations by the department, the minister, stakeholders such as the riai and the cif on the transition status of self builders from march 1st till the introduction of a mandatory buildrrs register in 2015, they are unsure as to whether they can still occupy the role of builder.

    All parties agree with the introduction of the mandatory register self building will cease. The question is under si9 will it cease this march. The iasob quite reasonably have not issues any conclusion on this pending written clarification jointly from the departmet and the monister, and the current builders completion cert being removed and replaced in si9. Essentially a watertight guarantee for their members. Anything less and they would be doing their members a disservice. The site is well worth a visit.

    Re interpretations of regs by certifiers yes previous poster is correct there are grey areas in tgd and indeed conflicts- transition arrangements and conflicts in tgds were the subject of a presentation by maria melia at a building control officers association conference in may 2012. She highlighter a number of these (part l, part m etc). Previously professionals could qualify opinions on compliance. The critiscism of si9 (previously si80) is that there is no provision for these grey areas in the new legislation and the specific wording is essentially a "guarantee" that works are in compliance. Very diferent and senior council advice obtained by architects and engineers (mcdonald and ralston opinions) all concur the wording is difficult and as a result may end up causing professional indemnity insurance as being unobtainable. So very difficult for professionals undertaking roles.

    The riai on 15th january formally wrote to minister hogan requestind deferral of si9 as legislation would do little for buildin standards and was not i. The interests of consumers. Priory hall residents, pytite panel report, national consumer agency ria submissions in 2012 all agree si9 is not fit for purpose.


  • #636
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Here is another boost iff bregs blog post. the figures if €5k for professional fees and €18k for builders costs on a €180k project are conservative. Preliminary estimates by riai and iei are in excess of these. The typical profile of a self builder can be seen on the iasob website- they appear ordinary people who otherwise would not be able to affird to build their own house. Self building is quite onerous and is not something to be attempted lightly. For most it is not a hobby but rather a financial necessity. Extract off bregs blog below:

    "Under SI.9 established builders must now be used in all residential projects over 40SqM. If a self-builder elects to do this role they will be deemed not compliant with the building regulations and may not be able to re-finance or sell their house later on. How much extra will a self-builder have to pay now under this new regime?

    Recent estimates from professional sources suggest the extra professional fees for SI.9 would be in the region of €5000 for engineers, building surveyors and architects. However these are only extra professional charges.

    On a typical €180,000 house a contractor’s “management fee” would range from between 5- 10% of the construction cost. There are also preliminary costs (scaffolding, site facilities) along with other costs. A conservative estimate for using an established contractor would be €18000. So the total cost of SI.9 from March 1st for a self-builder (professional fees + contractor costs) could be €23,000 or 12.8% of the total build cost. A huge additional cost for a sector trying to get value for money.

    For 5,000 self-builders this year alone the extra cost to for these ordinary people building their own homes could be €115 million euro.

    Key stakeholders and professions involved in the formulation of SI.9 have called for deferral of the legislation stating that there will be no benefit to us, the consumer. Under SI.9 the industry will remain self-regulated. €115m extra for no benefit- self-builders are the silent majority affected. That is a lot of votes in the next local and general election. Politicians better take notice.

    For anyone contemplating doing a self-build before 1st March 2014 please visit the Irish Association of Self-Builders here: iasob


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    Very few houses require anything other than standard details that comply with the minimum standards of the regs as set out in the guidance documents.

    You condemn yourself as unfit to be certifier with these words. In my eyes. Not Hogans however , sadly.
    strongback wrote: »
    BTW nothing is stopping a self builder building a 40m2+ extension.

    Other then potential negative consequences with respect to future conveyancing if S1 9 is not followed.
    strongback wrote: »
    It's still black and white.

    No you are arguing black IS white.

    The TGD's to the building regulations are a curious splicing of building science and law. One strand ever expanding and developing arising from research and development the other too arising out of the ever infinite potential for varying interpretations of the written word as it applies to varying circumstances. It is intrinsically grey and when you say
    strongback wrote: »
    This is nothing new and the new legislation won't change it.

    You ignore the fact that we have moved from sign off documents being in essence an Opinion , to becoming statements of Certainty. But you know this and are disingenuously subverting the thread by alleging others of being semantic.
    strongback wrote: »
    When some people are listening to Joe and Pat I'll be designing building and signing certs.

    Well quite. If I had the benefit of a new law that disenfranchised a body of my competition , tended to force the market in my direction , which law was shaped by my PI industry to limit my liabilities , I too would be so smug.


  • #638
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    The riai on 15th january formally wrote to minister hogan requestind deferral of si9 as legislation would do little for buildin standards and was not i. The interests of consumers. Priory hall residents, pytite panel report, national consumer agency ria submissions in 2012 all agree si9 is not fit for purpose.
    The RIAI have broadly welcomed the new regulations although identifying some gaps - http://www.riai.ie/images/uploads/INFORMATION_PAPER_1_ON_BUILDING_REGULATIONS_1_MAY_2013_FINALVERSION.pdf
    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Here is another boost iff bregs blog post. the figures if €5k for professional fees and €18k for builders costs on a €180k project are conservative. Preliminary estimates by riai and iei are in excess of these. The typical profile of a self builder can be seen on the iasob website- they appear ordinary people who otherwise would not be able to affird to build their own house. Self building is quite onerous and is not something to be attempted lightly. For most it is not a hobby but rather a financial necessity. Extract off bregs blog below:

    "Under SI.9 established builders must now be used in all residential projects over 40SqM. If a self-builder elects to do this role they will be deemed not compliant with the building regulations and may not be able to re-finance or sell their house later on. How much extra will a self-builder have to pay now under this new regime?

    Recent estimates from professional sources suggest the extra professional fees for SI.9 would be in the region of €5000 for engineers, building surveyors and architects. However these are only extra professional charges.

    On a typical €180,000 house a contractor’s “management fee” would range from between 5- 10% of the construction cost. There are also preliminary costs (scaffolding, site facilities) along with other costs. A conservative estimate for using an established contractor would be €18000. So the total cost of SI.9 from March 1st for a self-builder (professional fees + contractor costs) could be €23,000 or 12.8% of the total build cost. A huge additional cost for a sector trying to get value for money.

    For 5,000 self-builders this year alone the extra cost to for these ordinary people building their own homes could be €115 million euro.

    Key stakeholders and professions involved in the formulation of SI.9 have called for deferral of the legislation stating that there will be no benefit to us, the consumer. Under SI.9 the industry will remain self-regulated. €115m extra for no benefit- self-builders are the silent majority affected. That is a lot of votes in the next local and general election. Politicians better take notice.

    For anyone contemplating doing a self-build before 1st March 2014 please visit the Irish Association of Self-Builders here: http://www.iaosb.com/"
    Extra costs is not a good enough argument against the new controls. The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.


  • #639
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.

    The result will be less homes built. Less bad homes you might say . Arguable.
    More people without homes though - most probably.


  • #640
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The RIAI have broadly welcomed the new regulations although identifying some gaps - http://www.riai.ie/images/uploads/INFORMATION_PAPER_1_ON_BUILDING_REGULATIONS_1_MAY_2013_FINALVERSION.pdf

    Extra costs is not a good enough argument against the new controls. The aim of the regs is a better built environment and improving something costs money.

    Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?


  • #641
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

    The distressed property owners ( I am now thinking Priory Hall / pyrite affected house owner ) will in future be able to approach the local authority who will be happy to sell them certifications and supporting documents and drawings which the new law obliges them to retain. With that the distressed owners will be able if they have the money to engage in a legal process. Future governments and future local authorities will by virtue of Hogans law be easier able to distance themselves from the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    4Sticks wrote: »
    You condemn yourself as unfit to be certifier with these words. In my eyes. Not Hogans however , sadly.



    Other then potential negative consequences with respect to future conveyancing if S1 9 is not followed.



    No you are arguing black IS white.

    The TGD's to the building regulations are a curious splicing of building science and law. One strand ever expanding and developing arising from research and development the other too arising out of the ever infinite potential for varying interpretations of the written word as it applies to varying circumstances. It is intrinsically grey and when you say



    You ignore the fact that we have moved from sign off documents being in essence an Opinion , to becoming statements of Certainty. But you know this and are disingenuously subverting the thread by alleging others of being semantic.



    Well quite. If I had the benefit of a new law that disenfranchised a body of my competition , tended to force the market in my direction , which law was shaped by my PI industry to limit my liabilities , I too would be so smug.


    To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on that concept.

    The majority of the points you keep regurgitating have been dealt with in the new wording and that is why Engineers Ireland, The Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland and the RIAI have accepted the it and are preparing members for the 1st March. What does that tell you?

    Focus on the real issue that effect designers, builders and self builders and stop muddying the waters, experienced professional are not expecting the world to stop, they know there will be teething issues but these will get ironed out This isn't politics and nobody wants it to be. This is how we earn our living.

    Let's be realistic here the construction industry is not going to be killing itself chasing after 6300 self builders in the hope of making a living. There has never been a lot control placed on self builders and I imagine in time it will revert back to this. In other words nobody is that bothered with self builders especially the DOE. Self builders didn't sue the government when they had a problem.


  • #643
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    4Sticks wrote: »
    The result will be less homes built. Less bad homes you might say . Arguable.
    More people without homes though - most probably.




    There will be more houses built this year. Anyone working in construction can see a modest pick up in the industry.


  • #644
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?



    Self builders were not subject to the most stringent control up to now.

    Is the argument self builders don't want to be regulated as it costs money in fees?

    That's what it sounds like.


  • #645
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    Let's be realistic here the construction industry is not going to be killing itself chasing after 6300 self builders .... nobody is that bothered with self builders ....

    You fit in SO well in this particular forum , don't you. Puts all your "contributions into context.


  • #646
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    Engineers Ireland, The Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland and the RIAI have accepted the it and are preparing members for the 1st March. What does that tell you?

    They perceive "business as usual" as far as they are concerned. Nothing more than that and certainly not that they believe the Hogans stated principal aim of better buildings / consumer protection is going to be achieved. :rolleyes:

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYY0-JjycRZxBRJDXGhB1RA7y_X9YhGvoHvnqOzHlYsrsk9XST77UP1RcP


  • #647
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    There will be more houses built this year.

    2013 was a record low. Nice crystal ball you have there re 2014 house completion figures ;)


  • #648
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on that concept.

    I am just postal worker , don't expect too much from me now .


  • #649
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    strongback wrote: »
    Self builders were not subject to the most stringent control up to now. Is the argument self builders don't want to be regulated as it costs money in fees? That's what it sounds like.

    My read is that self builders would for the most part probably come to accept the imposition of a tighter inspection regime by Certifiers. Certainly the lady in the radio interview link a couple of posts back said as much. I have enough faith in most self builders that over time the benefit in terms of quality control would help them see fees spent on inspections and certifications as money well spent and not money wasted , sadly in my opinion the all too common perception now.

    The "bridge too far" is having to employ a main contractor. For reasons best expressed by the persons in the linked to radio interviews this is what perturbs self builders most.


  • #650
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?

    It is not perfect by a long way. It is however an improvement as there may be some fall back or protection for purchasers against the likes of Priory hall. So Yes, it will deliver some improvements.


  • #651
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    4Sticks wrote: »

    The "bridge too far" is having to employ a main contractor. For reasons best expressed by the persons in the linked to radio interviews this is what perturbs self builders most.

    You are so far off the mark that I am not sure if this point is serious?
    You don't let a self builder wire their own house so why would you let them manage the whole project with an ever increasing level of complexity such as air tightness or some of the new detailed junction requirements to reduce cold bridging. An improvement is sought in building standards and getting more experienced people involved in a project is a good way of making this improvement. It is certainly an improvement than having someone encounter these types of detailing issues for the first time. With due respect to people who are building their own house it is only natural that if they are not experienced in an area then they are more likely to make an error. Thus their built house will contain more errors than if they were to employ an experienced builder who is registered as competent.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement