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

1131416181932

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion. Watch this space...


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


    4Sticks wrote: »
    Initially at commencement
    What level of information is being sought
    To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
    On what basis do they invalidate

    Perhaps more intriguing at completion
    What level of information is being sought at this point
    To what extent do the local authorities scrutinize documents
    On what basis do they invalidate - and crucially stop buildings being used
    good question, I for one will be watching this space. but the LA's have gotten through this before, albeit slowly and to the annoyance of those trying to do a days work
    It will be interesting too to keep and eye on this CSO page . Presently it covers commencement notices lodged up to Nov 2013 but it will be very revealing when the statistics report 3-4 months before and after this point in time. We may have to wait until late 2014 to see the impact.
    anyone i have spoken to is pushing clients to issue commencement notice pre end of feb. look forward to you reporting back on the CSO figuressmile.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Anecdotally there appears to be a pattern emerging of some la's returning Commencement notices as incalid atm on technicalities

    This appears to be happening in at last 3 coco


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


    The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion.

    What do you mean by this - please elaborate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    4Sticks wrote: »
    What do you mean by this - please elaborate.

    Problems due to la understaffing- commencement notices being returned, completion documentation bein invalidated incorrectly...


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    ...completion documentation bein invalidated incorrectly...

    :confused: What completion documentation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    :confused: What completion documentation?

    Completion documentation required under si9 -


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Completion documentation required under si9 -

    SI 9 does not start until March 1st 2014. No 'completion' documentation (whatever that might mean) required until after March 1st.

    If people are submitting commencement notices now, under SI 9, maybe that's why they are being invalidated? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    The implementation issues i can see here are the interfaces with local authorities: commencement and completion. Watch this space...


    It will be interesting to see the roll out of the new software.

    Also as the RIAI have pointed to regarding commencement notices, projects that have planning but are not yet ready to go to construction stage, i.e. submit a commencement notice, will in a lot of cases get delayed. Consultants and builders will be cagey about agreeing fees until they get a handle on what the councils expects.

    I wonder if the council or DOE will issue guidances on what level of information should be submitted. The rumours I have heard is that lists of calculations may be acceptable instead of submitting every calculation. I suppose the councils will let consultants know if they are not submitting enough information. My view is to submit as little as possible given the information will be on the public record.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    3 weeks ago there was considerable confusion between local authorities as to actual implementation date- 1st march or 14th march. this has since been clarified as 1st march

    only grey area remaining is commencement notices lodged before 1st but subsequently declared invalid (after 1st march)-


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


    From page 32 of SI 9
    Regulation 12 inserts a new Part IIIC to the Principal Regulations providing
    for Certificates of Compliance on Completion. A completion certificate must be
    sent to the Building Control Authority
    and included on the statutory register
    maintained under Part IV of the Principal Regulations before works or a building
    to which these regulations apply can be opened, occupied or used. The
    completion certificate must be signed by the Builder and the Assigned Certifier
    and must be accompanied by plans and documentation showing how the completed
    building complies
    with the requirements of the Building Regulations (and
    clearly indicating any differences to design documentation previously submitted
    to the Building Control Authority at commencement or during construction)
    and by the Inspection Plan as implemented by the Assigned Certifier.

    This is then bit we will have to wait about 12 months or so to see how SI 9 pans out.

    To what extent will local authorities police these new regulations in the cases of self builders?

    To what extent will self builders be prevented from taking up residence in their newly constructed homes?

    Only time will tell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    3 weeks ago there was considerable confusion between local authorities as to actual implementation date- 1st march or 14th march. this has since been clarified as 1st march

    only grey area remaining is commencement notices lodged before 1st but subsequently declared invalid (after 1st march)-


    So work must begin on site prior to the 1st March to avoid SI9 stipulations?

    It would be harsh if they invalidated a commencement notice during its 28 day life because it straddles the 1st of March. Wouldn't surprise me if they did this though.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    strongback wrote: »
    So work must begin on site prior to the 1st March to avoid SI9 stipulations?.

    The commencement notice must be submitted before March 1st.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I have seen a summary of the possible costs of SI.9 on the industry. Do the benefits of SI.9 outweigh the costs? The bottom line number for this year is 6,000 construction jobs may be lost for 2014. Based on figures the initial cost of SI.9 could be €600m for 2014 with €480m an recurring annual cost based on record 2012 low levels of construction output. By 2020, in 6 short years, SI.9 may have cost the economy €3bn, or 30,000 jobs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    4Sticks wrote: »
    From page 32 of SI 9



    This is then bit we will have to wait about 12 months or so to see how SI 9 pans out.

    To what extent will local authorities police these new regulations in the cases of self builders?

    To what extent will self builders be prevented from taking up residence in their newly constructed homes?

    Only time will tell.

    Its quite likely that there will be inadequate policing by local authorities of self-built homes. Possibly no inspections triggered by self-builders when they nominate themselves as builder under si9. The problems may only appear when completion documentation is invalidated an returned by a local authority. One would assume self-builders will inhabit homes in any event as the prospect of enforcement will be pretty slim (inspections to date have been very poor nationwide). However when a self-builder decides to either re-finance their home or sell on would assusme a validation will be required by solicitors from the local authority for conveyancing purposes.

    As there is no provision in SI9 to retrospectively obtain a "builders" certificate on completion this situation could be very difficult.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    I have seen a summary of the possible costs of SI.9 on the industry. Do the benefits of SI.9 outweigh the costs? The bottom line number for this year is 6,000 construction jobs may be lost for 2014. Based on figures the initial cost of SI.9 could be €600m for 2014 with €480m an recurring annual cost based on record 2012 low levels of construction output. By 2020, in 6 short years, SI.9 may have cost the economy €3bn, or 30,000 jobs.
    Interesting. More expense and complexity, and all leading to the above end results if your figures above are correct. As if things in the economy are not bad enough as they are.

    Its quite likely that there will be inadequate policing by local authorities of self-built homes. Possibly no inspections triggered by self-builders when they nominate themselves as builder under si9. The problems may only appear when completion documentation is invalidated an returned by a local authority. One would assume self-builders will inhabit homes in any event as the prospect of enforcement will be pretty slim (inspections to date have been very poor nationwide). However when a self-builder decides to either re-finance their home or sell on would assusme a validation will be required by solicitors from the local authority for conveyancing purposes.

    As there is no provision in SI9 to retrospectively obtain a "builders" certificate on completion this situation could be very difficult.
    +1. There seems to be a lot of assumptions and uncertainty and I can see a lot of court cases and legal wrangles between all the numerous parties over the above in years and decades to come. No wonder there are no planning permission notices ( apart from retention of planning ) in a local paper I saw during the week, when even this time a few years ago there was some.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I agree with previous poster

    The "perfect storm" of vague wording in si9 and codemof practice, differing interpretations by minister and department on same, combined with inderskilled and inadequately resourced local authorities. Throw in premature introduction of legislationmless than 4 weeks after code of practice and its a real recipe for disaster. Legals will have a field day imho.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon




  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat



    Perhaps you should rephrase that to "guidance to public from local authority"...


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 templar01


    Been tracking this a good while- won't have our commencement notice in before March ....was going self build ..... Really dunno will this put a stop to our lifelong plans or what :-( ...understand why it's necessary to a certain degree but our budget was pretty reliant on direct labour - hopefully we can make it work but it's looking less and less likely - a decision either way by us could mean a life of regret <<<glass has slowly drained itself and were way below half Empty :-)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    a few observations on "guidance to public from local authority" document

    -For item 8 just to be correct 40 square meters is a little over 430 sq. feet.
    -The role of Design Certifier would appear to be removed from new process. The guidance document is suggesting that the Assigned Certifier will assume the role of Design Certifier (see item 9).
    -Regarding Self-builders items 11 and 12 would seem to be in conflict. The guide does not mention a building owner being able to sign the builder’s completion certificate, rather "the builder" must sign this document. Reading items 11, 12 and 22 together it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”: a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9?

    Is this the equivalent of a (builder's) visual only inspection certificate of compliance operated by professionals for the past 20 years? The singular weak point in procurement identified in the "build for sale" identified in the formation of SI.9?

    We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also...

    How is this going to be implemented in a consistent fashion?


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    The commencement notice must be submitted before March 1st.



    I was aware of that, my question was in response to Hairy Mellon suggesting there may be a grey area with commencement notices that were lodged before the 1st of March becoming invalid on the 1st of March.

    This is not something I had heard raised before so I asked the question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    templar01 wrote: »
    Been tracking this a good while- won't have our commencement notice in before March ....was going self build ..... Really dunno will this put a stop to our lifelong plans or what :-( ...understand why it's necessary to a certain degree but our budget was pretty reliant on direct labour - hopefully we can make it work but it's looking less and less likely - a decision either way by us could mean a life of regret <<<glass has slowly drained itself and were way below half Empty :-)


    I think because there are so many unknowns about the implementation of SI9 it is rightfully making a lot of people very pessimistic. My personal view is a lot of the issued e.g. self builders etc will get resolved, it will just take time. How much time should be better known a few months down the road.


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    My predictions:

    1. As with the planning and development act, local authorities will interpret this si differently. Some local authorities will be very hands on in inspection and may see it as an avenue to instruct the builders to get better builds. Some others will be quite happy to sit in an office and act as a filing system.

    2. Financial institutions will take the best parts of the si and insist on them for all mortgage releases, even for development that may be exempt under si9.

    3. The cif will be happy to take €600 year from building companies and won't be strict in who gets listed. They will fight tooth and nail to have this register expanded to cover all Grant assisted works even if exempt.

    4. Technicians will get no Lee way on becoming assigned certifiers. by the time the industry gets back to its feet the "sacred trio" of architects, engineers and building surveyors will firmly be planted as the go to guys. Technicians may be irked enough to formally break from riai but too little too late.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,340 ✭✭✭mullingar



    Thats brilliant in such an Irish way.
    11. I am building by direct labour, who do I nominate as the builder?
    The Undertaking by a Builder can only be signed by the builder who, preferably is registered with the Construction Industry Federation and can provide a ‘Construction Industry Register Ireland’ (CIRI) number. Further details can be found on www.cif.ie

    Preferably? Are they suggesting that its NOT mandatory and a self-builder can technically assign him/herself?
    12. I am a building owner. I have designed my own building and intend to build by direct labour. Do I still need an assigned Certifier?
    If your development is one of the types listed in Question 8 then, Yes, you must still nominate an Assigned Certifier. Additionally, you must, your self, sign the ‘Undertaking by Builder’ document. In doing so you will undertake the responsibility for compliance with the Building Regulations

    Ok, as a self builder I must still nominate an Assigned Certifier and I can sign the Undertaking by Builder document.


    Interesting interpretation of the legislation by the Coco.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    My predictions:

    1. As with the planning and development act, local authorities will interpret this si differently. Some local authorities will be very hands on in inspection and may see it as an avenue to instruct the builders to get better builds. Some others will be quite happy to sit in an office and act as a filing system.

    2. Financial institutions will take the best parts of the si and insist on them for all mortgage releases, even for development that may be exempt under si9.

    3. The cif will be happy to take €600 year from building companies and won't be strict in who gets listed. They will fight tooth and nail to have this register expanded to cover all Grant assisted works even if exempt.

    4. Technicians will get no Lee way on becoming assigned certifiers. by the time the industry gets back to its feet the "sacred trio" of architects, engineers and building surveyors will firmly be planted as the go to guys. Technicians may be irked enough to formally break from riai but too little too late.


    Good post.

    I think though that AT/technicians will have to organize themselves into a stronger voice either as their own entity or within the RIAI. I think it's very bad policy that capable experienced people have had there rights removed under SI9. For inspiration though look at what self builders have been able to do in a short space of time e.g. lobbying to get questions asked in the Dail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    mullingar wrote: »
    Thats brilliant in such an Irish way.



    Preferably? Are they suggesting that its NOT mandatory and a self-builder can technically assign him/herself?




    The 'preferably' is just there as there is no requirement yet for builders to be registered with the CIF. The 'preferably' will change to 'has to be' in time I suspect.

    As pointed out above LouthCoCo have just put up some general guidance for the public. It doesn't supersede SI9.


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


    a few observations on "guidance to public from local authority" document

    -For item 8 just to be correct 40 square meters is a little over 430 sq. feet.
    -The role of Design Certifier would appear to be removed from new process. The guidance document is suggesting that the Assigned Certifier will assume the role of Design Certifier (see item 9).
    -Regarding Self-builders items 11 and 12 would seem to be in conflict. The guide does not mention a building owner being able to sign the builder’s completion certificate, rather "the builder" must sign this document. Reading items 11, 12 and 22 together it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”: a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9?

    They make a dogs dinner of it don't they ? "Designer" and " Certifier" are two separate roles under the SI and the Certificate of Compliance (Design), may or may not in fact be signed by the Assigned Certifier. And there is no excuse for a government dept guideline getting m2/ft2 conversion wrong.


    We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also...

    How is this going to be implemented in a consistent fashion?

    It would be funny if it didn't actually matter.


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


    We have the CIF, RIAI, Minister and Department with differing interpretations of SI. 9. Now we have the local authorities heading off in a different direction also.

    The following interpretations as to if a self builder "be the Builder" will count most

    1. Your individual local authority . I have seen too what syd notes as different authorities forming different judgements on the same regulations

    2. your architect/engineer/surveyor may well interpret a burden ( in terms of the added liabilities for them ) on him or her not to deem you competent. Or may feel that they cannot offer a fee that balances what you feel you can afford vs. the time they feel will be required to "hold your hand " during the build. All novices need a lot of minding in my experience.

    3. Your lender may deem you incompetent and not advance funds to you if you intend the direct labour route.

    And it won't matter a damn what guidance is issued by whom then.


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


    From the perspective of the would be self-builder-direct-labour clients (and apologies now for entering into loose analogy ) . It is as if now you are being told that when it comes to buying a car you are no longer allowed to buy a 10 year old Skoda. You must only from now on buy a new Mercedes . In the interests of improving the stock of cars on Irish roads , all in the common good you see. That you cannot afford to buy a Merc is not the issue and you know , maybe car ownership is simply "not for you".

    And so to a wider question - does it matter if private individual max their limited budgets to house themselves in buildings that are most probably inferior vs the SI 9 method. These people tend to build and remain , they "lie in their own beds" so to speak. Why not let them do so . How will they be housed otherwise ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Looks like nearly 30% of new self-builds may not happen in 2014

    Due to implentation issues the 6 week delay period in this post may be underestimate:

    The extraordinary cost of BC(A)R SI.9 of 2014 | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/the-extraordinary-cost-of-bcar-si-9-of-2014/


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Looks like nearly 30% of new self-builds may not happen in 2014

    Due to implentation issues the 6 week delay period in this post may be underestimate:

    The extraordinary cost of BC(A)R SI.9 of 2014 | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/the-extraordinary-cost-of-bcar-si-9-of-2014/

    I could easily imagine €4-500 million being lost out on this year but I think it over eggs the pudding for it to be suggested that this happens every year for the next 6 years. In any case losing 5-6,000 jobs this year is definitely not acceptable. It's a bit of a shame the jobs and revenue argument wasn't at the forefront of the argument earlier.


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    i see Chubb insurance has withdrawn from underwriting PI insurance for architects in ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    i see Chubb insurance has withdrawn from underwriting PI insurance for architects in ireland.


    Wow I didn't expect this. I had no problem getting PI.

    Is there a link to this news?


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH



    Just got this in the post this morning attached to a planning permission from South Dublin County Council.

    As mentioned already, some of the information contained in this leaflet is simply incorrcet.

    If the LA's/DoECLG cannot advise the public correctly...what hope have we! :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    incorrect and contradictory. not helpful for anyone...


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    strongback wrote: »
    Wow I didn't expect this. I had no problem getting PI.

    Is there a link to this news?

    is there a link to this?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    strongback wrote: »
    Wow I didn't expect this. I had no problem getting PI.

    Is there a link to this news?

    do you honestly expect a press release?


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    where did you find out info?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    where did you find out info?

    pm sent


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    do you honestly expect a press release?

    I expect when such a significant development is being reported it should have a source.

    Have Chubb said they will not underwrite any architects in Ireland full stop or is this the response to one architectural practice. There is a big difference between the two.

    Is this based on a telephone conversation to a broker?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    pm sent


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


    mullingar wrote: »
    Thats brilliant in such an Irish way.
    Preferably? Are they suggesting that its NOT mandatory and a self-builder can technically assign him/herself?
    Ok, as a self builder I must still nominate an Assigned Certifier and I can sign the Undertaking by Builder document.
    Interesting interpretation of the legislation by the Coco.
    DOCARCH wrote: »
    Just got this in the post this morning attached to a planning permission from South Dublin County Council.
    As mentioned already, some of the information contained in this leaflet is simply incorrcet.
    If the LA's/DoECLG cannot advise the public correctly...what hope have we! :mad:
    anyone commented Louth coco on document?


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    BryanF wrote: »
    anyone commented Louth coco on document?

    This is not a Louth CC document. This is published by DoECLG!!! Makes it significantly worse/more annoying!


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    usually at this stage we see 'leaked' documentation from government to LA's on how to implement new regulations.

    To date there has been none leaked, none that ive seen anyway.
    With the implementation date only 2 weeks away surely the DOE have instructed BCOs on how to implement the regs.

    That would / should give a fairly definitive view as to the whole "self builder / builder certifier" question.


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    looking at that 'public guidance' in more detail... it seems pretty clear to me that the Department deem it ok that a novice unregistered 'self builder' can nominate themselves as the 'certifying builder'....

    which is completely at odds with SI9 AND the Code of practise.

    again i say, what a clusterfcuk !!!!!!


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


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    This is not a Louth CC document. This is published by DoECLG!!! Makes it significantly worse/more annoying!

    :confused:


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    clusterfcuk

    That nicely sums it up. 11 working days to go! :p....:eek:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    usually at this stage we see 'leaked' documentation from government to LA's on how to implement new regulations.

    To date there has been none leaked, none that ive seen anyway.
    With the implementation date only 2 weeks away surely the DOE have instructed BCOs on how to implement the regs.

    That would / should give a fairly definitive view as to the whole "self builder / builder certifier" question.

    that would only work the Government actually gave the LA some documentation! None so far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    kceire wrote: »
    that would only work the Government actually gave the LA some documentation! None so far.

    So, there we have it

    Incorrect guidance issues to local authorities for curculation to public.

    Implementation will be an unholy mess

    No mention of residential extensions that require planning under 40sqm- one would assume reading the regs this will be qualitying work also coming inder si9...


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement