Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

martinn123

wirehairmax wrote: »

is there any point to this thread any more?

It's just been a repeat, of positions taken, for the past 50 pages, to summarise

AT's can't participate
Others won't, can't afford Insurance, or it's not worth the potential exposure to liabilities.
Self-builders are out.
Pyrite is still out there
Rogue Developers can still build and go to UK for Bankrupsy.

Suggest suspend further posts till something actually happens to amend this Legislation.

4Sticks

Well this thread is long and it is old and has gone to seed alright. I would be happy to see it locked and unstickied.
But I do believe that the new legislation will impact many posters here in many different ways as I sketch-outline in my request for a new sub forum.
If established then the various implications of and shared experiences of the impacts of SI 9 can be fleshed out in separate threads.
I can foresee it taking off in much the same way as the BER and Renewable energies sub forums have.

Tutsohara

Question re new regulations (March 2014). Planning permission sought in 2008 for 4 bed dormer (1400 square ft), began without commencement notice and not completed. As it stands now its 4 walls and a roof. This new building replaced an older home which was on the property for years. Do you regulations apply to us if the building in theory began in 2008. Currently in process of seeking retention planning

sydthebeat

Tutsohara wrote: »

Question re new regulations (March 2014). Planning permission sought in 2008 for 4 bed dormer (1400 square ft), began without commencement notice and not completed. As it stands now its 4 walls and a roof. This new building replaced an older home which was on the property for years. Do you regulations apply to us if the building in theory began in 2008. Currently in process of seeking retention planning

No

These regs only apply to works commenced after 1st March

4Sticks

Great news ....

More radically, the government is proposing a new "Right to Build" scheme, giving people who want to build their own home the right to a plot from local authorities, backed up with a £150 million repayable fund
to help provide 10,000 serviced plots for custom build."Taken together with earlier initiatives, the measures in today's Budget underline the government's desireto boost supply of much needed new homes

.... if you live in the UK

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

Great news ....


.... if you live in the UK

omg! Ive just finished reading an article about that - great minds think alike
I was so happy to see their financial breakdown of £220,000 house built by a contractor vs £130,000 self built.
Take note CIF...u better get your armour on...lol

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I feel your request for separate sub-forum would go the same way 4sticks.

Depends who may or may not post there .....

galwaytt

mandy gall wrote: »

omg! Ive just finished reading an article about that - great minds think alike
I was so happy to see their financial breakdown of £220,000 house built by a contractor vs £130,000 self built.
Take note CIF...u better get your armour on...lol

Sorry, without seeing the numbers I'm calling BS on that. You're implying that margins for a builder are 40% ?? Waffle.

I'm building 10 in the UK atmo so do have some insight.

Either way, it's irrelevant to here: cost per m2 in the UK is much higher than here, so margins here are even tighter.

And you do realise there's an entire industry outside CIF, right ?

BryanF

galwaytt wrote: »

Either way, it's irrelevant to here

amen

4Sticks

galwaytt wrote: »

Either way, it's irrelevant to here:

The right to build has been dismissed here by some.
I think it's very relevant to point out that it is being championed only next door.

kkelliher

4Sticks wrote: »

The right to build has been dismissed here by some.
I think it's very relevant to point out that it is being championed only next door.

championed with a building control system already in place..... there is a marked difference between here (basically no system) and the uk so there is no point in comparing.

4Sticks

kkelliher wrote: »

there is a marked difference between here (basically no system) and the uk so there is no point in comparing.

That attitude prevailed from the start of this process and is one reason we have this appalling law.

It's never too late to do the right thing. Or seek the right thing

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

That attitude prevailed from the start of this process and is one reason we have this appalling law.

It's never too late to do the right thing. Or seek the right thing

Hear, hear! It's always the right time to do the right thing. SI9 is going to explode itself into dust

4Sticks

An alternative is presented here.

Why should we settle for less?

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

An alternative is presented here.

Why should we settle for less?

A sensible solution to the SI9 shambles.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

An alternative is presented here.

Why should we settle for less?

unfortunately we are up against a culture of "no responsibility" in our government classes.

this isnt simply a case of revoking SI9.... its a direct challenge to the whole underlying culture of "im alright jack" that pervades through the civil service.
From HSE and hospital managements, child protection, social protection etc we have a management system that is based on diluted responsibility to such a degree that no one is responsible. Its a hangover from union deals, inflated civil servant numbers and generally ass covering.

I can only imagine the out cry from the Building Control sections if they are ultimately found to have responsibility to go along with their statutory power.

4Sticks

Well just today we said goodbye to a PC Plod. Because enough people refused to accept the unacceptable.

kkelliher

4Sticks wrote: »

That attitude prevailed from the start of this process and is one reason we have this appalling law.

It's never too late to do the right thing. Or seek the right thing

I dont think anyone stated it was the right or wrong thing to do but to champion what is going on in the UK in comparison to Ireland is not comparing apples with apples. They have a far more developed control syste than we do so we cant simply wish ourselves into a position we are not in.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Well just today we said goodbye to a PC Plod. Because enough people refused to accept the unacceptable.

yes, but did anything change?
no apology, no removal of his slander from the government records....

cushy pension now that he would have gotten in 18 months anyway.

the more things change the more they stay the same....

4Sticks

I am concerned about the possibility of customers being exploited by professionals under these regulations. I will monitor the situation over the coming weeks and if I detect that the professional bodies are exploiting customers to the extent that the Deputy alleged – he only mentioned one quotation – I am prepared to consider ways of ensuring customers are not financially exploited in the manner to which he alluded

source

Just blame the architects

4Sticks

kkelliher wrote: »

I dont think anyone stated it was the right or wrong thing to do but to champion what is going on in the UK in comparison to Ireland is not comparing apples with apples. They have a far more developed control syste than we do so we cant simply wish ourselves into a position we are not in.

...and ?

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

source

Just blame the architects

The audacity of Hogan..coward

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can only imagine the out cry from the Building Control sections if they are ultimately found to have responsibility to go along with their statutory power.

Not if they were morphed into an SEAI style of overseeing body to a swathe of private certifiers.

Hogan held the "I sign this document and I alone am soley responsible for everything" over the professions for 20 of the last 24 months and so criticial thinking and clear leadership was abandoned by the rabbits in the Hogan headlamps. Survival was the order of the day ( with the RIAI stuffing AT's in that process) not the best possible building control system for Ireland.

That debate was never had.

Why not now ?

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

source

Just blame the architects

That was inevitable! If the DoECLG had carried out a proper RIA (Regulatory Impact Assesment) they wouldn't have the Minister spouting that sh**e.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Not if they were morphed into an SEAI style of overseeing body to a swathe of private certifiers.

Hogan held the "I sign this document and I alone am soley responsible for everything" over the professions for 20 of the last 24 months and so criticial thinking and clear leadership was abandoned by the rabbits in the Hogan headlamps. Survival was the order of the day ( with the RIAI stuffing AT's in that process) not the best possible building control system for Ireland.

That debate was never had.

Why not now ?

I can clearly see the merits of such a system. However, statutory powers MUST be afforded to the private certifiers in order for such a system to work.

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

4Sticks

DOCARCH wrote: »

That was inevitable! If the DoECLG had carried out a proper RIA (Regulatory Impact Assesment) they wouldn't have the Minister spouting that sh**e.

And when people start complaining that their extension works are being made more expensive because banks are "making them" comply with SI 9 watch Hogan allege collusion between banks and architects ....

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can clearly see the merits of such a system. However, statutory powers MUST be afforded to the private certifiers in order for such a system to work.

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

Exactly - even the grades of building / grades of certifier model could be transferred over. For those not familiar , the more complex the building type the higher grade of qualification one needs to be a BER Assessor. That kind of arrangement could be re used.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

1.what's a registered indemnified building contractor, does such a beast exist.

2.Does the multiplyer effect on fees from 1500 to 4500. Lessen your objection to these regulations, are we seeing a way forward I.e pay me more?

3.you want latent defects insurance, fair enough, so what are you actually taking responsibility for ? For these increased fees.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

1.what's a registered indemnified building contractor, does such a beast exist.

2.Does the multiplyer effect on fees from 1500 to 4500. Lessen your objection to these regulations, are we seeing a way forward I.e pay me more?

3.you want latent defects insurance, fair enough, so what are you actually taking responsibility for ? For these increased fees.

1. when builder realise they have to sign certificates of compliance, they will quickly learn the necessity for PI insurance. i would actually go so far as to say any tradesman who is providing certification for their work should be indemnified.

2. Not at all. They fees involved with these regulations are open ended and risk based. What is being proposed here is a fixed sliding scale based on build method, so that every prospective client knows at the outset what the fee will be for building regulation compliance inspection. See the UK system for example.

3. You should research what "latent defects" actually are and come back and see how silly that question is.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. when builder realise they have to sign certificates of compliance, they will quickly learn the necessity for PI insurance. i would actually go so far as to say any tradesman who is providing certification for their work should be indemnified.

For government contracts, the state will be looking for contractors to hold PI insurance pretty much from now going forward.

As I mentioned before, in this thread, if the state is looking for contractors to have PI insurance, you can bet that it will not be long before the private sector looks for same...contractors take note.