New Building Control Regs

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This would be a regressive step in my opinion, for obvious reasons. I'm told that none of the stakeholders have backed this proposal, so it's unlikely to gain any serious momentum.

I think the stakeholders who will support it, are the Self-Builders as witnessed by the post above from,@theirishlad.

That support will be driven by the Fees associated so far with providing this service.

I wonder if the LA's are not willing to take on this inspection regime, if an offset could be agreed between the Fees associated with Planning, paid to LA's, and the sums required to have a professional carry out the required inspections etc.

We hear a lot about the low costs in UK for Building Control inspections, in the hundreds for a one off, but the Inspectors wages are being paid by the LA, and presumably subsidised by the Associated Planning Application Fees and Charges.

Poor Uncle Tom

theirishlad wrote: »

I persume your a builder or architect of some type if u feel this is a bad idea for one off homes. If ssomeone is building a home to live in they will build it to a good standard , we dont need a certifier costing 10grand to tell us its a good standard.

You may be cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

If this move were to become a reality it would lead straight away to a two tier system for one-off housing:

1.Those who have been inspected and certified,
2.Those who have not been inspected and certified,

It is likely that the sale of a house from category 2 would be percieved as being of less value than a house from category 1.

When anyone builds a house for themselves they don't envisage selling it, but the reality is that a huge percentage will end up being sold, be it in 5, 10 or 20 yaers time, imagine your family not being able to realise full value for the property because you couldn't see past the top of your nose.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

I think the stakeholders who will support it, are the Self-Builders as witnessed by the post above from,@theirishlad.

How many self-builders have actually made submissions in support of this proposal? It would be interesting to find that out.

martinn123 wrote: »

I wonder if the LA's are not willing to take on this inspection regime,

They are actually prevented from doing so by SI No.9 of 2014, This is the whole issue.

martinn123 wrote: »

if an offset could be agreed between the Fees associated with Planning, paid to LA's, and the sums required to have a professional carry out the required inspections etc.

We hear a lot about the low costs in UK for Building Control inspections, in the hundreds for a one off, but the Inspectors wages are being paid by the LA, and presumably subsidised by the Associated Planning Application Fees and Charges.

Did you actually make this proposal in a submission yourself?

theirishlad

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.

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....

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

How many self-builders have actually made submissions in support of this proposal? It would be interesting to find that out.



They are actually prevented from doing so by SI No.9 of 2014, This is the whole issue.



Did you actually make this proposal in a submission yourself?

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

You're contradicting yourself there, if you have nointerest in the topic why are you contributing to the thread?

I'm continually amazed at how many spectators stand on the fences and shout 'advice' to the masses but who won't make a submission when given the opportunity.

galwaytt

martinn123 wrote: »

No, as I have no direct interest in this topic, neither being a House Builder, or engaged in the Architectural Profession,

is that a pre-requisite for contributing in this Thread??

sorry, confused I am: you have no interest in the topic, but feel compelled to post on the subject ??

Outside of that, why would you not make a submission on the subject ?

Who said it is confined to professions or tradespeople - this is a subject that affects anyone who lives in a building - you do live in a building, don't you ??

mickdw

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.
If people are borrowing, they will still have engineer supervising and completing cert of compliance as was always done and if this does come in, it will became standard practice across the board and as such houses will not be worth less.
I see it even now. People that had zero paper work getting a compliance cert at time of sale. The cert will be worded to exclude many items as only visual inspection took place and to be honest, once bank accepts wording, the home buyers don't even consider its contents or what it means, they just see it as nuisance paperwork.

theirishlad

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.
If people are borrowing, they will still have engineer supervising and completing cert of compliance as was always done and if this does come in, it will became standard practice across the board and as such houses will not be worth less.
I see it even now. People that had zero paper work getting a compliance cert at time of sale. The cert will be worded to exclude many items as only visual inspection took place and to be honest, once bank accepts wording, the home buyers don't even consider its contents or what it means, they just see it as nuisance paperwork.

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

Strolling Bones

Who would build a bad house for himself?
Sure didn't the banks lend on it before?
Isn't is "signed off" anyway?

Is the political reality that will win out.

"sure it will do"

Nothing changes.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself there, if you have nointerest in the topic why are you contributing to the thread?

I'm continually amazed at how many spectators stand on the fences and shout 'advice' to the masses but who won't make a submission when given the opportunity.

Well I have checked the Forum Charter, and it does not appear to disallow contributions from those who do not have a direct financial interest in a topic

As to shouting advice to the masses.......that's a bit rich, but if I was shouting, sorry about that ( thought you had to type in Bold to Shout )

Galwaytt wrote:

you do live in a building, don't you

Yep.

Strolling Bones

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.

Strolling Bones

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.

Gumbo

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.

Strolling Bones

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 ?

Strolling Bones

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......

Strolling Bones

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:

sydthebeat

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?

Strolling Bones

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.

Strolling Bones

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:

sydthebeat

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.

Strolling Bones

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

sydthebeat

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?

Gumbo

I'm actually dissappointed in this decision.

Strolling Bones

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

Gumbo

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.

Strolling Bones

and same for renovations exceeding 40m2 too imo

Gumbo

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.

sydthebeat

mickdw wrote: »

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.

in my experience inspections for one offs and extensions were none in anything or 0%

the 15% of inspections were usually made up by inspecting large developments

mickdw

sydthebeat wrote: »

in my experience inspections for one offs and extensions were none in anything or 0%

the 15% of inspections were usually made up by inspecting large developments

Not the case in mayo at all. Since about 2008, they were getting to about 1 in 8 of my jobs all of which were one off new dwellings.
Now the inspection was petty standard across the board. Initial letter requesting provisional BER with calcs in electronic format showing part L compliance.
Copy of drawings
Drawings showing compliance with part M, items from part F and sometimes items from part B.
Officer would then make site visit a couple of times throughout build.
Painless enough tbh and certainly not looking for anything that should not be in place in any recent build anyway.

Will23

kceire wrote: »

I'm actually dissappointed in this decision.

Agree... Electioneering at its very worst.

They have justed exempted one of the most high risk types of building too.. They might as well exempt spec developments while they're at it!

And to be fair things were just bedding down over the last few months, people getting used to systems, efficiencies working themselves through in the normal way.

Disappointing for sure

galwaytt

Will23 wrote: »

Agree... Electioneering at its very worst.

They have justed exempted one of the most high risk types of building too.. They might as well exempt spec developments while they're at it!

And to be fair things were just bedding down over the last few months, people getting used to systems, efficiencies working themselves through in the normal way.

Disappointing for sure

Exactly - just as people got used to it, professionals included, and then the goalposts get moved.

Strolling Bones

Did you not read what the minister said about profesionals "holding people to ransom" ?
Just blame the architect ... ( and engineer and surveyor )

DOCARCH

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Did you not read what the minister said about profesionals "holding people to ransom" ?
Just blame the architect ... ( and engineer and surveyor )

Or the bit where the minister apologises, saying 'the Department failed to do a full and proper Regulatory Impact Assessment prior to the introduction of the regulations and failed to listen to the advice of state and semi-state bodies'.

:P

DOCARCH

By the way, I do not believe BCAR will be completely gone for one-off houses and extensions.

I think that article in the Indo yesterday was a little bit of political spin from the minister(s)...Irish Water = Bad News Day...BCAR = Good News Day!

I think there may will be 'BCAR Lite' for one-off houses and extensions.

We will only know for definite once the Department publish something (rather than ministers saying something).

BryanF

DOCARCH wrote: »

By the way, I do not believe BCAR will be completely gone for one-off houses and extensions.

I think that article in the Indo yesterday was a little bit of political spin from the minister(s)...Irish Water = Bad News Day...BCAR = Good News Day!

I think there may will be 'BCAR Lite' for one-off houses and extensions.

We will only know for definite once the Department publish something (rather than ministers saying something).

Agreed.
IMO The key word here is 'indo' - we await an actual revision of the legislation.

Gumbo

mickdw wrote: »

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.

sydthebeat wrote: »

in my experience inspections for one offs and extensions were none in anything or 0%

the 15% of inspections were usually made up by inspecting large developments

Currently DCC are inspecting over 40% of CN's lodged. That's made up of a vast issues of building types.

Yesterday I went from a 2 storey extension to a house in Finglas to a 4 storey office conversion to short stay units (emergency accommodation).

I know Dublin is not the norm compared to other counties and we are the busiest in the country and we are the LA that others are looking at for guidance in inspection plans and how we store and save our files.

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

Exactly - just as people got used to it, professionals included, and then the goalposts get moved.

ive heard nothing but great reports from established contractors about BCARS

It levels the playing field for them in that every contractor prices the prescribed specification, and those that dont arent considered.

thats appears to be gone out the window again, and we're back to people learning on the job

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive heard nothing but great reports from established contractors about BCARS

It levels the playing field for them in that every contractor prices the prescribed specification, and those that dont arent considered.

thats appears to be gone out the window again, and we're back to people learning on the job

+1

mullingar

I for one am thrilled if this indo article is true as the BCAR professional fees are completely OTT for a self-build house and it also removed all hope of self-builders to even project management of their own home using professional trades-persons. (I do acknowledge the primary cost reason is all responsibility was placed on the AC)

I still believe that there should be independent inspections at all stages during any build, be it professional or self-build, and the UK model would have been ideal. Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

But my personal take on it the CIF got too greedy and lobbied for this unfair BSAR far too much and the legislation was poorly considered/worded, hence the pure mess.