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

New Building Control Regs

1…1213151718…23

Comments

  • #422
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    RITwing wrote: »
    The answer is to challenge the bad law for the good of the wider society. For there are none better than architects to understand intimately the defects of this law.

    But architects voted to

    Or am I reading that wrong?

    Because...there are a group preparing a very detailed and workable proposal for revisions to SI9. I know who is in that group and many were/are definitely anti-SI9. These proposals will not be finalised until early in the New Year. A review of SI9 has been scheduled for the New Year. If the motion was carried to seek an early review of SI9 - and the early review was somehow facilitated by the DoECLG - the proposals may not be finalised in time for review...pointless, in my opinion, to vote to have a review brought back a couple of weeks and not have a proposal.

    In my view better to go with a solution than simply be hostile...politicians and civil servants are far more open to solutions (to save face).


  • #423
    RITwing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 246 ✭✭RITwing


    We see things very differently. The majority of RIAI architects are wanting only to pick a nicer shade of colour for gorillas lipstick and they are doing so only to attempt to protect their own interests. By their own words they demonstrate this - the stated purpose of Ordinary Resolution 2 passed at the EGM
    to realise the best interests of the profession for the long term

    They have a duty to all who may build buy or use a building in Ireland to be "hostile" here.

    A duty to hold an inept govt dept and craven local authority management to account for the sake of wider society
    - the first to frame equitable legislation
    - the second to enforce compliance as that legislation provides for it to do so.

    Instead the majority RIAI architects seek their own advantages imagining some income stream is now generated for them by the requirements of SI 9 for all wishing to extend 40m2 ( or less perhaps ) to hire one of their members.

    For that they deserve the contempt of all society reflected back on them to add to the palpable contempt of the Custom House.

    What would Gandon make of that ?


  • #424
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    RITwing wrote: »
    We see things very differently.

    I agree with your general sentiments (except those making out that architects have the horns of the devil - you have your own agenda on that front)...I wholly differ with your opinion on how change should be achieved.

    Just bear in mind that if architects refuse to implement SI9, in reality, the DoECLG probably couldn't give (much of) a toss! There are other professions rubbing their hands and waiting to step into the void that might leave.


  • #425
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,862 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Seeing as there more surveyors providing the service than engineers (bregs survey) and there are only low hundreds registered. .... then it's obvious that the profession with the vastly overwhelming arc of power in this "service" is architects.

    This is also the profession that leads the vast majority of public projects, so if a decision was taken en masse to non participate in order to seek revocation the government would have to listen, similar to the teachers striking etc.


  • #426
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    This is also the profession that leads the vast majority of public projects, so if a decision was taken en masse to non participate in order to seek revocation the government would have to listen, similar to the teachers striking etc.

    Yes, but other professions are 'knocking on the door', e.g. of the Dept of Education, to say they would be more than happy to take the lead!


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    RITwing
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 246 ✭✭RITwing


    So let them. Then architects could dodge the awful liabilities imposed by SI 9 but more vitally take to the airwaves with some moral authority and leadership to point out to all the unknowing that the state has moved to protect itself from it's citizens - why don't architects scream this loudly? Because they are cowards , dining with devil seeking the crumbs.

    all deserve to know that

    1. if they or their children buy a home in Ireland the govt has moved to distance the state from them if that home is later found to be defective. SI 9 can be re branded the Pyrite/Priory Hall charter for it makes provisions for that to happen again - only next time easier for the state not to assist .

    2. modest extension works will cost more for no tangible benefits

    3. self building is finished

    Forget how badly architects are served by SI 9.

    Show leadership.

    Show how society is badly served.


  • #428
    RORY O CONNOR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 270 ✭✭RORY O CONNOR


    Self building is not finished.

    From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.


  • #429
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    RORY O CONNOR wrote: »
    Self building is not finished.

    From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.

    Whose name goes in the builders area of the commencement notice?
    Who gives the builders undertaken certificate?
    Will an assigned Certifier sign off on joe blogs as a builder?


  • #430
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,862 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    RORY O CONNOR wrote: »
    Self building is not finished.

    From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.

    and apart from a CIRI number, how does said "self builder" demonstrate competency? how much evidence of previous projects have to be provided?

    should the 'self builder' be a complete novice to project management.... whos name goes in the area for"building contractor"?


  • #431
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    read:
    http://www.iaosb.com/building_control_(amendment)_regulation_s.i.9_of_2014_has_failed_self_builders_of_ireland.html

    Letter to Minister Alan Kelly from Iaosb on 15th of September 2014

    Dear Minister Kelly,

    I am writing to you regarding Building Control (Amendment) Regulations: S.I.9 of 2014 which came to effect on 1st of March 2014.

    This new regulation was the answer by then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan T.D., to ensure properties are safe and compliant with Building Regulations. According to Mr. Hogan, this Amendment would stop situations like Priory Hall and Pyrite problems and give extra protection to home owners against bad workmanship by Building Contractors. The idea sounded great but like all his other policies it has done nothing but make life more difficult for the people of Ireland.

    Self-building has been a major sector of all the house’s built in our country in the past decade and I am sorry to tell you that since the commencement of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I.9 it has denied many of us the centuries old Irish tradition of building a house for ourselves and our families.

    Under the rules of S.I 9, self-builders will have to employ a certified professional (Architect, Engineer, Building Surveyor) to design the house for them and then an Assigned Certifier to sign off each section of the build to confirm that it has been built according to the Regulations. Perfect, a supervised build under the eyes of the professionals. However, like other thousands of self builders in Ireland we would be grateful if you could let us know the contact details and locations of these Certifiers as they are almost non-existent. From the feedback that we have been receiving, as soon as your so called Design and Assigned Certifiers hear the word “Self-Build” the conversation ends as none of them are prepared to endanger their business by signing off the certifications needed for the build in case something goes wrong. Before the commencement day of S.I.9, the RIAI President, representing the Architects of Ireland, protested to Minister Hogan and raised concern about the possible consequences this amendment might bring but this was ignored by the Minister.

    According to Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Building Control (Amendment) Regulation: S.I.9 of 2014 was needed to give protection to self-builders should something go wrong. However, by not having any professional committed to the build, all that S.I.9 has done is to make it a lot more difficult for them to build and make the dream of owning their own house a thing of the past. What S.I.9 has done is like giving a man a brand new car with all the extra safety features designed for the protection of the family but then ruining it by putting a clamp on all four wheels. There is no point having this car if it does not go anywhere.

    Self-builders of Ireland have been let down by your department and this government. Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I 9 of 2014 is a joke and not even a funny one. It needs to be revoked or revised otherwise the option of Self-Building will be gone for many families in Ireland.

    Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I.9 of 2014 has failed and you need to take action now.

    I would be grateful to you if you do not reply with false promises and politically correct answers like the ones we have had in the past two years from Mr Hogan.

    I look forward to hearing from you soon.


    Kind regards,


    Shane McCloud
    Irish Association of Self Builder
    www.iaosb.com


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    and more recent submission by IAOSB to DECLG

    https://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/iaosb-submission-to-declg/comment-page-1/


  • #433
    RORY O CONNOR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 270 ✭✭RORY O CONNOR


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    and apart from a CIRI number, how does said "self builder" demonstrate competency? how much evidence of previous projects have to be provided?

    should the 'self builder' be a complete novice to project management.... whos name goes in the area for"building contractor"?

    The self builder demonstrates competency by demonstrating the competency of tradesmen doing the work. I am really sorry I even bothered to post my last remarks. There is such a fear about of the new BCA that everyone seems to have lost the plot and is running scared.

    In my experience most self builders have a pretty good idea about what to do to get the job done and in many cases do a far better job of it than many so called professional builders.


  • #434
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Imo the issue isn't competencies of either builder or self-builder (my experience is self-builders are well able also)- There appear to be two issues. The code of practice does not mentions self-builders but does note what a competent builder is deemed to be. It indicates that the builder should have three years similar building experience. This, along with Law Society advice, is why self-builds appear to have difficulty getting certifiers.

    Also there is uncertainty in the poorly worded regulation and in the completion certificate (director of building company etc)- even if you are well able to construct a compliant house etc. there is a risk of invalidation at completion stage.

    Just look at the whole 40sqm exemption fiasco at present: there are plenty of small projects that are underway or completed that have valid short form commencement notices (exempt from BCAR due to less than 40sqm. Now, it would appear from BCMS advice, they are subject to SI.9. Recent advice from BCMS and reiterated by the RIAI make the 40sqm threshold less clear-cut, and they are saying the figure is cumulative (like planning exempted development). If you have a 39SSqm extension completed previously and you want to add on a 3Sqm porch, you fall under SI.9. and need the full shooting match.

    This means that BCMS and DECLG interpretation of SI9 has 'evolved', and some completed (and under construction) project will now be deemed to be invalid. Letters of exemption (as required by Law Society) may not be issued on these projects, and there is no method of retrospective compliance in SI.9.

    This looks like the department is "making this up as they go along"- it is no wonder self-builders are reluctant to commence.


  • #435
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Recent advice from BCMS and reiterated by the RIAI make the 40sqm threshold less clear-cut, and they are saying the figure is cumulative (like planning exempted development).

    Just to point out that, yes, the BCMS did say that...but the RIAI are querying that at present. The RIAI did pass on the information (i.e. what the BCMS said) if that's what you mean by 'reiterate'.


  • #436
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    Because...there are a group preparing a very detailed and workable proposal for revisions to SI9. I know who is in that group and many were/are definitely anti-SI9. These proposals will not be finalised until early in the New Year. A review of SI9 has been scheduled for the New Year. If the motion was carried to seek an early review of SI9 - and the early review was somehow facilitated by the DoECLG - the proposals may not be finalised in time for review...pointless, in my opinion, to vote to have a review brought back a couple of weeks and not have a proposal.

    In my view better to go with a solution than simply be hostile...politicians and civil servants are far more open to solutions (to save face).


    I agree about bringing a solution, but if this group is beavering away on its own, it too is a self interest group. ...

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #437
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    they passed it on and made an even more onerous interpretation- demolition would not be taken into account


  • #438
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    here is post:
    https://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/riai-practice-news-40sqm-bcar-si-9-exemption/

    Imo advice from BCMS and Department has been incorrect previously. Stakeholders (ACEI/ RIAI/ SCSI) should be getting expert legal advice not asking Department for another interpretation.

    Remember they originally stated exemption was 40Sqm OR 400Sq Ft

    I believe Kevin Sheridan is another stakeholder who said the BCMS interpretation (cumulative) was the one intended at the CIOB this week.


  • #439
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    ...and it continues: a potential client in Mayo got a quote for the DC/AC under SI9 for his new build. 223m2, 2-storey w/sunroom to rear. Price for BCMS work quoted was €15,500, ex-VAT, giving a total of €19,065.00 inc VAT.

    That does not include structural design work to superstructure, either (which we have in our package to him), but it does include structural design for foundations etc.

    ...'tis a long way from Phil's "€1000-1500" per house, eh ??

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #440
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

    €2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....


  • #441
    Drift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭Drift


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

    €2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

    WOW .... I don't even know where to start!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

    €2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....


    this week I see that J Little repeated calls for the homebond book to be 'withdrawn and extensively revised'.

    I plan on going to an info day next week (for free) with homebond in Cork, ill report back.. wonder if anyone will raise: http://www.thejournal.ie/homebond-snub-over-pyrite-a-matter-of-serious-public-concern-committee-329297-Jan2012/


  • #443
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I dont think anyone has seen fine print in new defects policy...I wonder will pyrite be covered?


  • #444
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    I think it was our friends in the Law Society who around about 2000 warned that HB were charging too little per house to build up a significant reserve of cash to cope with a significant series of defects. They were right.

    And it appears here we are again.


  • #445
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    so, sighs of relief all round, back to status quo...

    what was that Beckett quote again?


  • #446
    Strolling Bones
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭Strolling Bones


    Hairy mellon wrote: »

    what was that Beckett quote again?

    I paraphrase. Those who fail will continue to get better at it.


  • #447
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

    €2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

    No mention from Homebond re Design Certifier? Who is to carry out that role and at what cost?

    I also believe that for your E2K they will do 5 or 6 visits. Is this sufficient?

    What Homebond offer is not defects liability insurance, it is just their standard Homebond cover (same as before)...which would appear does not cover much!


  • #448
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I am sure for an extra €100 or €200 they would do design certifier role

    not sure how many inspections but BCMS suggested inspection plan recently (Engineers Journal) was 7 so if homebond plan 7 then they are right on the money

    Defects scheme i dont know details but its different to previous (apparently)

    One thing it will do- put a market rate on assigned certifier for housing at below €2000 (as per Hogan and DECLG initial guide)


  • #449
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,862 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    I am sure for an extra €100 or €200 they would do design certifier role

    not sure how many inspections but BCMS suggested inspection plan recently (Engineers Journal) was 7 so if homebond plan 7 then they are right on the money

    Defects scheme i dont know details but its different to previous (apparently)

    One thing it will do- put a market rate on assigned certifier for housing at below €2000 (as per Hogan and DECLG initial guide)

    LOL

    for an extra €200 they would produce a full set of building regulation complaint drawings????

    i really hope they do, theyd be out of business the next day!!!


  • #450
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    LOL

    €2k includes €250 foundation design, AC role and Defects Insurance. AC cost has to be below €1000...

    so much for the fees bonanza for professionals...


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,862 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    LOL

    €2k includes €250 foundation design, AC role and Defects Insurance. AC cost has to be below €1000...

    so much for the fees bonanza for professionals...

    if they will take on the liability for those costs, let them have it all ;)

    but we already know their track record when it comes to honouring their insurance guarantees


Advertisement