Building standards debacle gets worse!!!!

Slig

Just listening to the news on Today FM. Seems SEAI undertook a survey of 52 houses to investigate compliance with insulation, ventilation and fire regs built since 1997 and found that NONE complied fully! Worse still they never published the results

I'm looking for the article that appeared in construct Ireland and I'll link as soon as I find it

Chris Arch

Slig wrote: »

Just listening to the news on Today FM. Seems SEAI undertook a survey of 52 houses to investigate compliance with insulation, ventilation and fire regs built since 1997 and found that NONE complied fully! Worse still they never published the results

I'm looking for the article that appeared in construct Ireland and I'll link as soon as I find it

I am curious to know what did not comply? Walls? roofs? Floors? Pipework not insulated? glazing?

Prior to 2008, Part L was not that difficult to comply with.

sydthebeat

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1129/1224308280440.html

this is the newspaper article on the topic.

basically:

NONE OF the homes examined for an unpublished survey of housing built between 1997 and 2002 complied with the State’s building and energy regulations. The sample survey, which was commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland in 2004, showed many of the 52 homes examined failed to meet minimum insulation, ventilation and safety regulations.
Just one of the properties met the minimum energy-efficiency requirements.


The survey of the houses built between 1997-2002 found:
- 93 per cent did not comply with regulations on reducing the risk of fire spread and pollution from oil storage tanks
- 92 per cent of the houses failed to meet minimum insulation levels for water cylinders, pipes and ducts
- 42 per cent did not meet minimum ventilation standards




I think the shocking aspect is not the non compliance, but the fact that SEI held this report so close for so longwithout appearing to have alerted powers or influencing policy change with it.

Slig

What was said was that although the levels of insulation passed a visual inspection when further investigation was carried out (thermal imaging) it showed that there were large portions missing.
It's something we all knew was happening really, the builders and developers were given free range to put what they wanted into the buildings and often things like vents or minimum window openings were omitted. When it came to fire safety it was usually assumed that if Window opening in a bedroom fit the size it was acceptable regardless of what was below (roofs and projections) or if there were correct fasteners.and safety catches.
What's frustrating is that not only did people pay well above the value for these Celtic tiger houses but now they will be associated with bad quality of build as well as design, anyone that was around during the 1970's and 80's when bungalows were the new big thing must be suffering serious deha vu

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

the fact that SEI held this report so close for so long without appearing to have alerted powers or influencing policy change with it.

T. Sargent raise this actaul report with O'Donoghue in the dail back in (i think) 07 following a J. Colley article in the sunday tribune- the greens were fobbed off by Bertie and the SEAI told to bury it

Eoghan Barra

When I was building an extension to our house in Dublin in 2008, the minimum cavity wall insulation required to meet the regs. was 65mm if I remember right (I used foil-backed polyurethane, wouldn't use it now).

None of the 3 large local builders suppliers kept this thickness in stock, only 50mm or less, and I had to order the 65mm in specially. There wasn't even any pretense at compliance. I'm sure that, as Slig says, the 40 or 50mm if anything being put in walls at the time wasn't put in correctly as a rule either, with gaps etc.

That's not even to mention the whole issue of thermal looping: the effect of air movement within partial fill cavity walls with rigid board insulation, which drastically reduces the thermal efficiency. (http://www.century.ie/cent/PartialFillCavity.pdf)

Add to that the fact that the most commonly used insulation, polyurethane, is said to steadily emit pentane gas, also leading to dramatically reduced perfomance, and it's clear that much of the housing stock built over the last decade will be virtually useless without carrying out additional measures: pumping cavities, external insulation etc.

The whole thing is a disgrace. Those who will be paying the price are the ordinary homeowners all across the country who will see their heating bills increase exponentially as fuel goes up in price. The blame lies at the door of developers/builders not giving a damn about anything but their profit margins, as well as an obtuse conservatism within the industry.

BryanF

Eoghan,
people are still building to these crap standards, you only have to look around at the quesitons been asked here on boards

whats worse is there are a string of 'professionals' out there (present company excluded) that don't rate energy efficiency in their priorities at all! nor do they have the background/interest to think for themselves as far as appropriate materials or installation ..

imo nothing will change without proactive building control - I just cant see any other way..

Eoghan Barra

Totally agree with you BryanF, the regs. have to be enforced with frequent spot checks or there's no point in even having them.

Chris Arch

BryanF wrote: »

Eoghan,
people are still building to these crap standards, you only have to look around at the quesitons been asked here on boards

whats worse is there are a string of 'professionals' out there (present company excluded) that don't rate energy efficiency in their priorities at all! nor do they have the background/interest to think for themselves as far as appropriate materials or installation ..

imo nothing will change without proactive building control - I just cant see any other way..

If by proactive building control you mean something similar to the British system then I would support such a move, but I don't think that it is the way that the Irish government is taking.

If by proactive building control you mean restrictions on who shall certify the works with obligation to be registered with one institute as per the Multi-units Development Act 2011, then I think that you should review your definition of proactive building control and change it to something more appropriate.

BryanF

Chris Arch wrote: »

If by proactive building control you mean something similar to the British system then I would support such a move, but I don't think that it is the way that the Irish government is taking.

If by proactive building control you mean restrictions on who shall certify the works with obligation to be registered with one institute as per the Multi-units Development Act 2011, then I think that you should review your definition of proactive building control and change it to something more appropriate.

chris, I'm not getting drawing into one of your pointless 'who's the architect' debates.

'Building control' : where proper drawings are submitted to LA, checked for compliance and then works on-site checked, at the different stages, and sign-off given before works can continue by an impartial third party.

Chris Arch

BryanF wrote: »

chris, I'm not getting drawing into one of your pointless 'who's the architect' debates.

Bryan it is not a pointless debate. If you consider the government strategy on building control so far, it consisted mainly in empowering institutes such as the RIAI and IEI and others, not only architects but also engineers... The BCA 2007, the MUDA 2011, TGD 008 and so on...

The recent politics did not really promote the control of buildings but it implemented restrictions on who can control and practice...

Many examples abroad and in Ireland prove that this is not the correct strategy. Institutes are fighting for their members interests instead of fighting for a fair and efficient system.

BryanF wrote: »

'Building control' : where proper drawings are submitted to LA, checked for compliance and then works on-site checked, at the different stages, and sign-off given before works can continue by an impartial third party.

Your description is probably the best system similar to those already enforced in the UK and Australia... I wish it was, but I do not think that anything similar is on the Government's agenda...