New Building Control Regs

It looks like that it will be that

- the one off self builder can make his own bed and lie in it
- the spec developer will be able to buy his certifier/certification

Priory Halls / "Kildare" houses will continue.

And will alwaysl be "the architects fault".

Well played Merrion Square.

Poor Uncle Tom

theirishlad wrote: »

One off the very few people talking sense on here.......

Really!

Now I'm not interested in all the regs etc,

I was just seeing if there was some easier way around it as the budget is very tight.

These are just examples of quotes from a current thread on the main C&P forum which I think demonstrate the attitude towards building regulations when the reason for them is not understood.

Budget on a job will ALWAYS take precidence.

Getting qualified Certificates for older houses may still be accepted, but the point is that if a two tier system comes into play, not every solicitor for a purchaser will accept the qualified certificate as it will be percieved as being of lesser value and therefore covering less.

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

as it will be percieved as being of lesser value and therefore covering less.

Except I beleive that "full" certification as it will become known will be regarded as only the rich mans indulgence. Who would not pay all those "excessive" fees once you can afford to ? But the common view will be that "partial" cerification will be regarded as the norm for "ordinary" people and the housing market will function bouyantly on that basis in due course. Solicitors and banks will play along don't worry about that.

I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.

Poor Uncle Tom

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Except I beleive that "full" certification as it will become known will be regarded as only the rich mans indulgence. Who would not pay all those "excessive" fees once you can afford to ? But the common view will be that "partial" cerification will be regarded as the norm for "ordinary" people and the housing market will function bouyantly on that basis in due course. Solicitors and banks will play along don't worry about that.

You could be right, but that remains to be seen. My feeling on it is that it will be used as a means of getting the sale price for a property lowered, if there is not 'full' certification of a property then it would be used as a bargaining tool to drop the price.

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

But that would make for very aquard pillow talk.....:D

Strolling Bones wrote: »

The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.

They still do, if you listen to the recent sound bites.

theirishlad wrote: »

The word of them making the building regs advisory is still out there. That would mean ya dont need assigned certifier for a one off self build. Does anyone know when the government plan to take this new rule in. Will it b weeks months year's. ?

According to officials in the Department, this is a non runner to them. The LA's made a submission and everyone of them said they do not want this rule to enacted on.

and govt ministers always listen....

.

galwaytt

mickdw wrote: »

Surely people are misunderstanding the proposal. Building regs will still apply in entirety just the requirement for complying with si9 will be relaxed for one of houses. .

You understand it. I understand it, many people understand it. But that's not what irishlad is saying, to wit :

theirishlad wrote: »

But thats up to the person building it , if they want the certs they can still do it. So if u wanted to sell if future maybe you should get certs.

He's advocating there for no certs at all, unless you're selling. Maybe. But if you don't inspect and 'certify' as you go along, how on earth would you expect anyone to hand you a Cert in 5/10/15 years down the line ?

And as for this line......

theirishlad wrote: »

People go on about how good our trades men are in ireland so why should any house be of poor quality nowadays never mind years ago what happened. Im living now with good trades men....

..if all the work is that good: why the litany of problems ?

galwaytt wrote: »

But if you don't inspect and 'certify' as you go along, how on earth would you expect anyone to hand you a Cert in 5/10/15 years down the line ? ?

What people want is to begrudge paying anything for "a peice of paper" upon which they will later rely on to sue the fool who gives it to them.

And so re enter the much maligned "opinion" certificate which by necesity must be heavily caveatted.

People truly get what they want.

galwaytt

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I blame the RIAI for the situation now for not publicly exposing the DOE for it's lack of ambtition to actually raise building standards and for simply framing regaulations to distance the state from the consequences of more building distasters.

The RIAI for their part thought they saw a business opportunity for (some of) their members - and if the RIAI put financial advantage ahead of house building standards I don't blame anyone else for doing so either.

The former paragraph I know what you meant, but I think the language is getting mixed up, to wit: there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with Building Regulations - what's wrong is the (non-existent) enforcement of them. No regulation is any good unless (properly enforced and supervised). This what BCMS was supposed to cure - that and insulate the State from claims (as you say). Take the famous cases with regard to Fire: the Regulations stipulate (say) 1 hour detailing. None was carried out, none inspected to ensure compliance (or if they were, promptly ignored), and all were 'signed off' (by various people). None of this is a failing of regulations - it's a failing of building 'control', inspection and certification.

If they changed the Regulations to make that detail 1.5hrs tomorrow it wouldn't make a jot of a difference if its not actually being done on site in the first place - this is why more onerous regulation is sometimes counter-productive.

The latter paragraph certainly rings true, but I suspect the RIAI didn't anticipate the backlash and the amount of business going off a cliff on this: if they didn't tell the DoE as part of the process that they would be charging many multiples of what Phil Hogan told the Dáil the extra costs would be, then they were either manipulative or naieve in the extreme. All they've done is cut off their own noses......

Gtt - we are on the very same page.

galwaytt

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Gtt - we are on the very same page.

Indeed. Thank God for the UK market, that's all I can say.

DOCARCH

Mod Note: Just to say that I moved recent posts in relation to planning/retention to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055080784

tipperary

Looks like a change in the Regulations is imminent: One-off homes and house extensions will be exempt from regulations introduced just last year to prevent shoddy building work, it has been confirmed

DOCARCH

Rather than exempt...reading that article the suggestion is optional! Daft!

If it proceeds on that basis, in 10 years time will we possibly have a two tier property market? One off houses/extensions with full certification and without?

DOCARCH

From Indo article: 'Education courses will also be developed to allow people become assigned certifiers'.

Sounds like BER all over again! :rolleyes:

The Indo have a proven track record for adding 2 + 2 and getting 5... so ill hold my comments on this until i see published documentation.

But what seems certain that one offs and extensions will be removed from Si 9.... most probable to simply fall back into pre si 9 conditions.

i wonder what financial institutions will make of this and how they will protect themselves on mortgage payments?

sydthebeat wrote: »

i wonder what financial institutions will make of this and how they will protect themselves on mortgage payments?

They make money by lending money.
They don't care if you live in a firetrap radon or pyrite infested hovel costing you twice whats it's value is now.

And the punters will oblige taking on debts regardless.

Nothing has changed and nothing will.

tipperary wrote: »

Looks like a change in the Regulations is imminent: One-off homes and house extensions will be exempt from regulations introduced just last year to prevent shoddy building work, it has been confirmed

Take a bow Mandy Gal :cool:

Strolling Bones wrote: »

They make money by lending money.
They don't care if you live in a firetrap radon or pyrite infested hovel costing you twice whats it's value is now.

And the punters will oblige taking on debts regardless.

Nothing has changed and nothing will.

not if they start repossessing builds that turn out to be lower value and unsellable, as they are finding out these days.

I take your point.
The real enforcers of building standards may yet prove to be the money lenders.

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I take your point.
The real enforcers of building standards may yet prove to be the money lenders.

or maybe just refuse to offer full mortgages to non inspected dwellings in the future?

I'm actually dissappointed in this decision.

It will be welcomed by many here.
Build by Boards :rolleyes:

Strolling Bones wrote: »

It will be welcomed by many here.
Build by Boards :rolleyes:

I believe all housing should have a certifier, even one off's.
I believe the self build should have been relaxed if there was an AC on board to supervise.

and same for renovations exceeding 40m2 too imo

Strolling Bones wrote: »

and same for renovations exceeding 40m2 too imo

Yeah all works (New Build & Extensions of any size) can proceed by direct labour if there is an AC on board, that would be my view.

mickdw

kceire wrote: »

Yeah all works (New Build & Extensions of any size) can proceed by direct labour if there is an AC on board, that would be my view.

But this seems to be a complete row back to pre si9 for one of dwellings.
The article in the indo is then spun to make it sound like local authorities inspections are now being put in place instead when the truth is that inspection on about 1 in 8 builds was the norm pre si9.
It seems we will be returning to the old situation of only having a professional on board if you are borrowing for the works.
Still. I'm not complaining.
On a side note, I'm not sure a high level of compliance was being achieved anyway in cases when householders were not borrowing for the works - There has been cases here of no commencement being sent.