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

pconn062

Hairy mellon wrote: »

here is a good post on the extent of "red tape" for a typical house now.

mind-boggling....click on jpeg in post

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/architects-overview-of-regulations-for-a-dwelling/

It's actually incredible when you see it laid out like that. :eek:

Hairy mellon

that's for one house...

and the government is wondering why housing applications and completions are down since last year?

gooner99

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

RORY O CONNOR

gooner99 wrote: »

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

I don't think so. During the boom times many developers self certified and then problems became apparent further down the line. An example of this was during the big freeze several years ago water supply pipes froze because they has not been installed deep enough into the ground so that they would not be affected by the cold air temps. Priory hall is another fine example where there was no certification in place. What the new system will do in theory is make people-Engineers, Architects etc culpable and traceable as they will have signed off at every stage of the build. It should in theory make for better quality and higher standards of construction.

sydthebeat

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

I don't think so. During the boom times many developers self certified and then problems became apparent further down the line. An example of this was during the big freeze several years ago water supply pipes froze because they has not been installed deep enough into the ground so that they would not be affected by the cold air temps. Priory hall is another fine example where there was no certification in place. What the new system will do in theory is make people-Engineers, Architects etc culpable and traceable as they will have signed off at every stage of the build. It should in theory make for better quality and higher standards of construction.

incorrect

it was certified, by an RIAI registered architect.

Hairy mellon

gooner99 wrote: »

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

no- self-building is now essentially banned under SI.9 everywhere: recently DCC tried to sell on a plot in Dublin suitable for a group of self-builders unsuccessfully

this applies to D4 or donegal- self-bulding, where an owner (without 3 years experience as a builder) can't operate role of management contractor (builder) co-ordinating sub-contractors.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

incorrect

it was certified, by an RIAI registered architect.

Not correct either!

It was certified by nobody.

An RIAI registered practice was engaged to prepare the design...the practice was not engaged by the developer to carry out any inspections during construction...but...were then asked to provide Opinions on Compliance for the finished development based on visual inspection only of the completed works.

There is/was a specific form/format of Opinion on Compliance where the architect has no input during the construction stage, agreed with the Law Society, purely for the conveyance of the property...daft as that may seem, but that's the way the vast majority of builder/developer built houses and apartments in this country were sold in the last 25 years!

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

...but...were then asked to provide Opinions on Compliance for the finished development based on visual inspection only of the completed works.
!

well to be fair thats exactly what i was referring to and what was know at the time as the standard "certification"

so it was certified......

Hairy mellon

no official investigation or audit of priory hall was ever published

no report with recommendations

priory hall is the 'poster boy' for si.9 and the department hasn't even reviewed the case to see who did what, when and what should be done to stop the same happening.

IMHO there is nothing in the new legislation to stop the same thing happening- owners will still be left trudging the courts.

Look at the new minister's answer to queries re redress for owners affected by mica in blockwork in donegal...

you're on your own.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

so it was certified......

No.

mandy gall

Hairy mellon wrote: »

no- self-building is now essentially banned under SI.9 everywhere: recently DCC tried to sell on a plot in Dublin suitable for a group of self-builders unsuccessfully

this applies to D4 or donegal- self-bulding, where an owner (without 3 years experience as a builder) can't operate role of management contractor (builder) co-ordinating sub-contractors.

hear, hear - sad state of affairs now...

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

No.

ah come on now....

if your arguing semantics about what "certification" is then youre being deliberately disingenuous.

An RIAI architect signed a piece of paper to state in his opinion the build was substantially in compliance with planning permission and building regulations.

no matter what way revisionists would like to dress this up, this was what was commonly know as "certification" at the time.

the sales of those apartments went through based on this 'opinion on compliance'. it transpired afterward that even the bloody layout of those apartments were not in compliance with fire regs, never mind the construction.

maybe certain vested interests would like to sweep this ineptitude under the carpet and pretend it didnt exist, but anyone who followed those issues as closely as was followed here would know the truth.

edit: some research has shown me that the form of opinion on compliance provided from the developer on priory hall was in fact 1b ((architectural service provided (design and (Apartments) construction)).
these were provided as evidence for the FACC.

Hairy mellon

in the absence of a formal investigation into priory hall, it's quite likely that all the paperwork required under the old system of building reg compliance was in place at time of conveyancing of individual units- visual only certs of compliance for building regulations, planning certs etc. The problem in this case appears to be common areas and areas not visible on completion: external walls and fire-proofing etc.

without a formal published report we will all be going on heresay imo

the fact that a report was not published suggests that all the required paperwork was in place...and the building was defective. Don't forget the local authority purchased a number of units in Priory Hall also and one would assume these were the subject of the local authority's comprehensive due-diligence. The same rigorous process applied to thousands of units bought by the state over the past 20 years....(PH may only be tip of the iceberg)

if all the units had the required paperwork, sold on and conveyanced ok, then were found to be defective- this points towards the accepted system of building control being not fit-for-purpose. In this case self-certification building-control.

Our new system is supposed to be different- only problem it remains self-certification. Unfortunately no change- more paperwork, more cost and ultimately no additional consumer protections. A wasted opportunity

Hairy mellon

Dont take my word for it:

here is an assessment of SI.9 by Graham Usher, resident representative in Priory Hall

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/lessons-of-priory-hall-were-not-learned-in-the-creation-of-new-building-control-regulations-bregs-grahamusher/

very interesting short interview with RTE by Graham Usher
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/graham-usher-raises-concerns-about-the-new-building-regulations-bregs-prioryhall/

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

...

without a formal published report we will all be going on heresay imo

....

from the dail record

signed copies of RIAI Form 1 — The Architect’s Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations (the form for use where professional architectural service has been provided at the design and construction stage of the relevant building or works) were provided by the developer to the Department’s inspector in support of the FACC application.

These forms for Priory Hall were signed by a registered member of the RIAI and accompanied by the RIAI Membership Stamp confirming that architectural services were provided at design and construction stages; that designs (based on drawings submitted by the signatory) are in substantial compliance with the Building Regulations; and that fire safety certificates were properly obtained. The form is completed by the inclusion of the statement that “in the opinion of the Architect concerned, the construction of the relevant Building or Works is in substantial compliance with the Building Regulations.”

so it was certified....

Hairy mellon

certified, examined, conveyanced... and defective.

Hairy mellon

makes for stiff reading:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/riai-news-alert-summary-of-5-senior-counsel-opinions-on-bcar-si-9/

galwaytt

Hairy mellon wrote: »

makes for stiff reading:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/riai-news-alert-summary-of-5-senior-counsel-opinions-on-bcar-si-9/

Indeed, and even within it the legal experts don't all agree either.

Hairy mellon

yes- clarity will come in the courts unfortunately for all concerned

galwaytt

Hairy mellon wrote: »

yes- clarity will come in the courts unfortunately for all concerned

...am witnessing the merry-go-round on a site atmo, where no-one wants to sign anything, yet all want to start working, but no-one wants to sign anything.........get the idea ?

And it isn't even a self-build.

Bloody nightmare.

Hairy mellon

not really- previous system was a merry-go-round where solicitors won

new system will be a slightly different merry-go-round where solicitors still win

this is a good article here:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/private-lifts-and-sunny-views-but-still-a-real-housing-mess-30630737.html

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

...am witnessing the merry-go-round on a site atmo, where no-one wants to sign anything, yet all want to start working, but no-one wants to sign anything.........get the idea ?

And it isn't even a self-build.

Bloody nightmare.

Well my merry-go-round got sorted this a.m. Arch is no longer on the job, and the DC/AC roles have been taken on by a new party as a package, for 1/3 the price the Arch wanted for DC alone. New guys a registered CS.

Got official notification from BCMS that we're a 'go' for onsite next week. Tfft.

I met a company in Dundalk last week too, and they are packaging DC/AC roles for approx €6k per project (one off house).

Be interesting to see how it beds down into the future...

sydthebeat

yeah i can see engineers and surveyors taking on these services in the vacuum of the RIAI squabbling.

whether or not its a clever thing is another story...they race to the bottom has already begun

RORY O CONNOR

Engineers Ireland running a course in early November to help clear up misconceptions that seem to be flowing all over the place. I have heard of one individual who has paid out €20K for an AS which is crazy money.

Hairy mellon

one architect i heard of cant even get ancillary certificates from appointed design team, let alone sub-contractors

do any of them have a suite of recommended documents ready to go, even for a house? ACEI, SCSI or RIAI?

Inspection plan/ form/ tender clauses/ CPR2013/ completion stage docs?

Surely there is some best-practice template out there?

RORY O CONNOR

From chatting with Dublin corporation recently trying to find out from them what documentation they want from me to get the final completion certification it would appear my site inspection plan/diary and the form downloaded from the BCA site is all they want.

Ancillary certification which I presume includes the final BER cert, the electrician's RECI cert, certs from the joiner, certs from the glazer, the plumber plus my certs for the foundation and steel elements does not seem to be required-or if it does they don't know its required!!!

Will23

Ancillary Certs are not a legal requirement under the act, it is up to the assigned certifyer to specify the level of ancillary certification he/she requires for design and inspection.

If you chose not to request/demand an ancillary cert for an element you haven't designed, you are opening yourself up to liability for that element.

The level of certification required will depend on the complexity of the project and the capability of the contractor I.e. Based on risk...

Gumbo

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Ancillary certification which I presume includes the final BER cert, the electrician's RECI cert, certs from the joiner, certs from the glazer, the plumber plus my certs for the foundation and steel elements does not seem to be required-or if it does they don't know its required!!!

DCC will not require these docs. They are Anchillary Certificates to cover your backside, the AC's Final Completion Certificate is what matters.

Also remember that the inspection plan which is uploaded at commencement is a draft plan, you are required to update that with the actual inspection plan carried out at completion.

RORY O CONNOR

Thanks for this. I think also that Homebond are offering a course in regard to what the actual process is and whilst its a bit longwinded apparently does prove itself to be useful in the end.

Gumbo

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Thanks for this. I think also that Homebond are offering a course in regard to what the actual process is and whilst its a bit longwinded apparently does prove itself to be useful in the end.

I hear that DCC staff can be quite helpful if you get the right one on the phone