nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New Building Control Regs

lawlorboy

Got planning in 2011 then made an amendment which we got planning march 19th 2014 with the conditions attached to the original planning permission but no one knows do we build to to 2013 regs or 2014 regs...anyone know the answer???

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

miss no stars

Frog Song wrote: »

Thanks. I thought as much but I thought you were suggesting to miss no stars there that they had to be on site every day.

That's the impression I got as well. :rolleyes:

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

they wont be, no one could afford that.

have a look at this, which suggest 99 hours

at how much per hour ?

RITwing

Ralphdejones wrote: »

at how much per hour ?

start with annaul Salary
X to cover overheads
/ 1900 hours

For a one man band fee

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

start with annaul Salary
X to cover overheads
/ 1900 hours

For a one man band fee

So how much are you talking per hour roughly ?

RITwing

Ok let's say we have a very experienced profesional together with a recently qualified assistant. Suppose they split the time 50/50 on a project. If we say the senior guy is on €60k per year the junior on €30k - this aggrerates to €45k

( €45,000 x 3 ) / 1900 = €71/hr.

That is a sketch estimate. There will be variables depending on each case.

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

Ok let's say we have a very experienced profesional together with a recently qualified assistant. Suppose they split the time 50/50 on a project. If we say the senior guy is on €60k per year the junior on €30k - this aggrerates to €45k

( €45,000 x 3 ) / 1900 = €71/hr.

That is a sketch estimate. There will be variables depending on each case.

Sounds about right.

So that's about 7000 grand ex VAT for the 99 hours

sydthebeat

Frog Song wrote: »

Thanks. I thought as much but I thought you were suggesting to miss no stars there that they had to be on site every day.

no i was saying that thats what the wording of the certificates expect.

im making the point that thats the onerous standard expected, everything on a building site is subject to building regulations, therefore when the certifier signs off, they are signing that every design, process, workmanship and material are compliant.

obviously common sense has to apply in real world situations..... and not in the world of the civil servants who devised the system and worded the certs.

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

no i was saying that thats what the wording of the certificates expect.

im making the point that thats the onerous standard expected, everything on a building site is subject to building regulations, therefore when the certifier signs off, they are signing that every design, process, workmanship and material are compliant.

obviously common sense has to apply in real world situations..... and not in the world of the civil servants who devised the system and worded the certs.

Whatever the eventual practice on the ground, the courts will be going by the wording

sydthebeat

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Whatever the eventual practice on the ground, the courts will be going by the wording

... which is why the assigned certifers balls are on the block

RITwing

....until we see how the ref's apply the new rules....

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

... which is why the assigned certifers balls are on the block

As there is effectively no real world enforcement of the building regs in Ireland, some won't give a shyte about that though, and we're back to the situation where the cowboys can undercut the honest certifiers every time.

RITwing

and where unscrupulous developers can hire - as a staff member - a weak architect/engineer/surveyor to sign "as required"

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

and where unscrupulous developers can hire - as a staff member - a weak architect/engineer/surveyor to sign "as required"

even a 'strong' one is going to have to sign what he's told, or take a hike.

RITwing

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

There will always be a lad cheaper than you willing to sign whatever he's told, and they're the ones that'll have all the work. With no real world enforcement of the building regs by the state authorities, he who pays the piper calls the tunes, and that means the developers.

fash

Ralphdejones wrote: »

(in response to whether ACs are ltds) Most of the ones I've seen certainly are. They'd be a bit stupid not to be in this day and age.

Whoever signs the cert could be sued personally in tort anyway- even if the ltd in theory signs the cert. It's why employees of a company should never sign certs- they are potentially personally liable if the aggrieved plaintiff so wishes (e.g. if the company folds).

Edit: that's beside the point that the vets must be signed personally.

fash

sydthebeat wrote: »

It is impossible for you to say this as there has not yet been a case brought against an assigned certifier.

Plenty of cases taken against architects based on the current system though- so very possible to say.
And joining third parties or co-defendants is a very simple procedure in litigation.

fash

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Sounds about right.

So that's about 7000 grand ex VAT for the 99 hours

You'll have to double that to cover employer's prsi, sick leave, holiday pay, insurance, registration, necessary annual courses, office, accountant, electricity, rates, office overhead, etc.

RITwing

You could halve it and still much of the market will complain it is too much.

RITwing

Commencement Notices - after a massive spike earlier in the year - are falling massively in numbers now...

galwaytt

RITwing wrote: »

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

True, and we'll be getting in to the realms of no fee - no cert too.

RITwing

galwaytt wrote: »

True, and we'll be getting in to the realms of no fee - no cert too.

Well I am with Eoin O Coffaigh on this. I would not act as DC or AC under SI 9 for any fee.

Charlie-Bravo

I'm wondering would a straw pole be useful. For those in a position who can act as a DC/AC under SI9 whether or not they intend to undertake such instructions considering the liability?

Hairy mellon

AC/DC looks like completely toxic roles. On completion local authorities only looking for assigned certifier documentation (no ancillary certs needed) so single-point of responsibility

DC has to upload any changes to design before they are constructed on site. There is no mechanism in BCMS to allow access to system for separate DC.

AC+DC should be one, separate, role.

CIF certs very light and suggest compliance only with drawings- appear to be less responsibility than pre si9

Very important to stitch in proper responsibility in tender and contract documentation. Also compliance with Part D means a very onerous peperwork record must be kept by certifiers of all materials and components used in a project.

admin on this is very time-consuming.

Hairy mellon

in the vacuum due to the following:

1) no COP for BCA's (code of practice for building control authorities)
2) no standard "template" for best practice from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
3) inadequate documentation from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
4) uncertain insurance implications

it would seem appropriate to take a year or two off and come back when all this stuff is in place...

Gumbo

Hairy mellon wrote: »

in the vacuum due to the following:

1) no COP for BCA's (code of practice for building control authorities)2) no standard "template" for best practice from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
3) inadequate documentation from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
4) uncertain insurance implications

it would seem appropriate to take a year or two off and come back when all this stuff is in place...

theres a Framework for BCA's out, but its a work in progress i believe.

Hairy mellon

v1 posted up- final version due out this month

mind you draft suggests BCA's only responsible for policing "the marketing" of materials....

DOCARCH

Interesting....

'Fine Gael expert group opposed the introduction of new regulations'.

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/fine-gael-expert-group-opposed-the-introduction-of-new-regulations/

No6

DOCARCH wrote: »

Interesting....

'Fine Gael expert group opposed the introduction of new regulations'.

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/fine-gael-expert-group-opposed-the-introduction-of-new-regulations/

Ha!! they can join the club, its a pity they didn't take their minister aside and give him a good talking to!!

DOCARCH

Another very good piece/article from Eoin O'Cofaigh

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/eoin-o-cofaigh-friai-a-changing-landscape/