New Building Control Regs

sydthebeat

mullingar wrote: »

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.

and remember Big Phil was rewarded for this and other obvious debacles with a big pension and a pay roll in europe !!!

remember when he said this doozie

the requirement will “typically cost” between €1,000 and €3,000 more per housing unit

Gumbo

mullingar wrote: »

Having an AC on the pay-roll of a builder/developer will not work - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

But the home owner should always engage the AC/DC, not the builder!

Rabbo

mullingar wrote: »

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.

The 2013 Safety & Health Regulations still require the client to appoint a competent Project Supervisor Construction Stage (PSCS) to oversee all health and safety aspects on site. How will self-builders comply with this requirement? Similar to the BCARs, the self builder can appoint themselves as PSCS however they are declaring that they are competent enough for the role. In the event of an accident , will the Project Supervisor Design Process (PSDP) be left carrying the can for being complicit in an incompetent PSCS being appointed on site?

A relaxation of the BCARs is not consistent with the current Health and Safety legislation. If the Health and Safety legislation isn't similarly relaxed, are we just going to have a blind eye turned? In the case of an accident, I have a feeling that the PSDP, and their insurance, is going to be saddled with the blame.

Strolling Bones

mullingar wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Future homebuyers will pay the price for as you say correctly developers will still call the shots.

mullingar wrote: »

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.

The profesional bodies were just as bad. One of them even shafting their technician members when they thought they saw "an opportunity".

Not one public body in fact lobbied in selfless earnest for measures aimed at heart to raise building standards.

But Mulinger there is nothing to be delighted with here. A sorely needed intevention by govt to improve building standards was so badly handled.


.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

But the home owner should always engage the AC/DC, not the builder!

No - only DC.

The AC should be funded from the pot of CN fees lodged with the LA.
So the AC/DC has no direct relationship with any party to the build.
Uk-style.

Chisler2

sydthebeat wrote: »

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

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build).

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

sydthebeat

Chisler2 wrote: »

It interests me greatly that there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds.

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the......

fact it doesnt affect the majority of the country?

Strolling Bones

Chisler2 wrote: »

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build)

Because one bad decision after another is appaling. An inspection regime which placed unisurable risks on the inspector to be replaced with no regime at all helps no one and should not be welcomed.

Chisler2 wrote: »

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Sounds appaling - please link to article. However given that this forum mostly attracts self builders explains apparent lcak of concern.

Chisler2 wrote: »

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

I don't know how fees will be impacted. But you are essentially correct.
The RIAI saw this as the creation of some sort of cash cow. Instead of doing what they should have done - loudly and publicly critising the shortfalls in the legislation as it affected house buyers - they played ball with Hogan in return for a protected status under the act. Utterly shameful.

mickdw

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Because one bad decision after another is appaling. An inspection regime which placed unisurable risks on the inspector to be replaced with no regime at all helps no one and should not be welcomed.



Sounds appaling - please link to article. However given that this forum mostly attracts self builders explains apparent lcak of concern.



I don't know how fees will be impacted. But you are essentially correct.
The RIAI saw this as the creation of some sort of cash cow. Instead of doing what they should have done - loudly and publicly critising the shortfalls in the legislation as it affected house buyers - they played ball with Hogan in return for a protected status under the act. Utterly shameful.

There was a certain satisfaction yesterday in the fact that 2 of hogans masterpieces were shown to be failures on the same day.

BryanF

Chisler2 wrote: »

Having tut-tutted about the difficulty of implementation and flaws of the 2015 SI9 Amendment, posters here react with volume and vehemence to the proposed September lifting of the "Assigned Certification" condition on one-off houses (frequently self-build).

However there appears scant interest in the OTHER article in the Indo............on swinging changes in quality of apartment builds. These include reduction by 25% of window-area, loss of the one-parking-space-per-apartment stipulation and reduction of apartment size (of what was already a "shoe-box"!!!!).

Might the lack of outraged response be due to the fact that this disturbing de-regulation - leading to inevitable deterioration in quality of domestic living-space for 'the many' - will not adversely impact the fees of construction-trade professionals - architects, Chartered Surveyors and Engineers? If so that is a sad state of affairs.

How many professionals here have built/designed an apartment block in the last 7 years?

This is a sly piece of legislation by government, if anything, space/storage and glazing(light) should be increased in apartments, not reduced. Whether it affects fees or not is irrelevant - it's simply not on many peoples radar

Will23

the apartment standards only relate to DCC as far as i know (maybe FC/DLRCC also?), the DOE apartament standard guidance document allows a smaller size than the current DCC development plan in any case, and most other dev plan refer to this document.

in saying that i do not agree with reducing unit size. However, if they are for rental only, as the indo article suggests, and come with strings attached regarding communal facilities in developments, then i think there is a market in dublin city for these smaller studio type units for rental.

you would currently pay in excess of €1.8-2.5k per month to rent a 55sqm apartment with dual aspect in dublin city. The market needs to cater for single people living alone, without the need for house share.

the standards came in in the 2011 dev plan and there have been very few apartments designed to this standard since then.

but as i said, i think the 55 sq m, dual aspect, requirement should have stood. In fact it is the loss of the dual aspect element which is most disappointing.

Allowing for apartment buildings higher than 6-7 stories should have been the solution imo. increase density, increased units

anyway, this is off topic from BCAR.

Will

Chisler2

Will23 wrote: »

the apartment standards only relate to DCC as far as i know (maybe FC/DLRCC also?), the DOE apartament standard guidance document allows a smaller size than the current DCC development plan in any case, and most other dev plan refer to this document.

in saying that i do not agree with reducing unit size. However, if they are for rental only, as the indo article suggests, and come with strings attached regarding communal facilities in developments, then i think there is a market in dublin city for these smaller studio type units for rental.

you would currently pay in excess of €1.8-2.5k per month to rent a 55sqm apartment with dual aspect in dublin city. The market needs to cater for single people living alone, without the need for house share.

the standards came in in the 2011 dev plan and there have been very few apartments designed to this standard since then.

but as i said, i think the 55 sq m, dual aspect, requirement should have stood. In fact it is the loss of the dual aspect element which is most disappointing.

Allowing for apartment buildings higher than 6-7 stories should have been the solution imo. increase density, increased units

anyway, this is off topic from BCAR.

Will

My apologies if I have taken the thread "off focus" but the attention to one-off houses, and apparent absence of interest or reaction to diminution of quality of apartment housing, is worth questioning. There are standards and qualities...........or there are "no standards" or "sliding standards" and "anything goes".

I do mourn the simplicity of the UK system which has Local Authority inspection as standard. Quality and standards in construction are a matter of public safety and amenity. Standards and their implementation are best administered by local council professionals funded through general taxation. It is difficult to acknowledge and I wish it were other but............the construction sector in Ireland is a tangled web of vested interests and plastering-over-the-cracks compromises. The psycho-social effects of the resultant basic flaws in the built environment are phenomenal...............and saddening!

I shall now get off my soap-box.

mickdw

Chisler2 wrote: »

My apologies if I have taken the thread "off focus" but the attention to one-off houses, and apparent absence of interest or reaction to diminution of quality of apartment housing, is worth questioning. There are standards and qualities...........or there are "no standards" or "sliding standards" and "anything goes".

I do mourn the simplicity of the UK system which has Local Authority inspection as standard. Quality and standards in construction are a matter of public safety and amenity. Standards and their implementation are best administered by local council professionals funded through general taxation. It is difficult to acknowledge and I wish it were other but............the construction sector in Ireland is a tangled web of vested interests and plastering-over-the-cracks compromises. The psycho-social effects of the resultant basic flaws in the built environment are phenomenal...............and saddening!

I shall now get off my soap-box.

No doubt that a system of council inspection is what the government should have done. Much more power in the hands of the inspector to ensure standards are met.
Of course the government here just sought to take themselves out of the loop entirely and just pushed further liability on private practice. I don't know why - An inspection and certification fee could reasonably have been added to planning contributions or credibly levied on commencement. They had a golden opportunity to do this when activity was small and then ramp up as required. Any levy could have covered an insurance scheme/fund to protect government from claims.

stickybookmark

Is there any chance that those of us unlucky enough to commence building since last May but before this September could have the Bcar legislation retrospectively lifted from our build? Or an argument that could be made to not bother certifying it at the end (which will be next May) and claim that legislation is now null and void?

sydthebeat

stickybookmark wrote: »

Is there any chance that those of us unlucky enough to commence building since last May but before this September could have the Bcar legislation retrospectively lifted from our build? Or an argument that could be made to not bother certifying it at the end (which will be next May) and claim that legislation is now null and void?

any changes will require new legislation, hard to see anything being passed this year.

stickybookmark

sydthebeat wrote: »

any changes will require new legislation, hard to see anything being passed this year.

Feck it though the legislation will be passed by next May. If anyone comes asking for certification surely one could tell em take a running jump sure that requirement is null and void

sydthebeat

stickybookmark wrote: »

Feck it though the legislation will be passed by next May. If anyone comes asking for certification surely one could tell em take a running jump sure that requirement is null and void

you cannot legally send in a commencement notice though, until this amendment comes in

stickybookmark

sydthebeat wrote: »

you cannot legally send in a commencement notice though, until this amendment comes in

my commencement notice went in and was accepted, in June

atech

Two-tier system it is:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,42399,en.htm

"The new regulations will come into effect from 1st September 2015."

stickybookmark

atech wrote: »

Two-tier system it is:

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/News/MainBody,42399,en.htm

"The new regulations will come into effect from 1st September 2015."

Pity no movement on the arch techs (yet)

rodge123

I wonder are there plans to reduce the LA development levies?
Wishful thinking on my behalf probably!

See:

Housing Minister Paudie Coffey said that new policies were coming on stream to speed up delivery of units. They included a reduction in development levies, developer finance being made available and a vacant site tax.

From this article:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/families-with-just-one-income-are-struggling-to-rent-affordable-homes-31414592.html

murphy31ie

I handed in my commencement notice in January, house will hopefully be finished December. Do I still have to get everything certified if the law no longer exists after 1st September.

DOCARCH

murphy31ie wrote: »

Do I still have to get everything certified if the law no longer exists after 1st September.

Yes. The 'law' will still exist after 1st September!!!

Gumbo

stickybookmark wrote: »

my commencement notice went in and was accepted, in June

Then I think you are contracted to the system in place as is

stickybookmark

kceire wrote: »

Then I think you are contracted to the system in place as is

Nah i'm gonna tell em take a hike if anyone asks me for a cert next May
the requirement is gone end of story

Gumbo

stickybookmark wrote: »

Nah i'm gonna tell em take a hike if anyone asks me for a cert next May
the requirement is gone end of story

Have you got an assigned Certifier on board or was it under 40Sq. M?

Poor Uncle Tom

stickybookmark wrote: »

Nah i'm gonna tell em take a hike if anyone asks me for a cert next May
the requirement is gone end of story

Lets see, who could ask you for certification for your building works:

Bank,
Building control officer,
Solicitor,

Which of them would you tell to take a hike?

mickdw

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Lets see, who could ask you for certification for your building works:

Bank,
Building control officer,
Solicitor,

Which of them would you tell to take a hike?

If someone wasnt borrowing, it's only building control they will come looking for it.
I believe they will come looking as there will be an open job on the system.
More to the point, if the build has commenced and the professionals are on board, why would the certs not be produced anyway?

I'm interested to see what fudges come about to remove the requirement for certification for these builds that have recently started.

Poor Uncle Tom

mickdw wrote: »

If someone wasnt borrowing, it's only building control they will come looking for it.
I believe they will come looking as there will be an open job on the system.
More to the point, if the build has commenced and the professionals are on board, why would the certs not be produced anyway?

I'm interested to see what fudges come about to remove the requirement for certification for these builds that have recently started.

What changes can they actually make to commitments already given on uploaded certificates at the start of the job as part of the commencement notice documentation?

mickdw

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

What changes can they actually make to commitments already given on uploaded certificates at the start of the job as part of the commencement notice documentation?

How about falsely declaring that builds never actually started thereby invalidating previously validated commencement notices then resubmitting short form after September.
I did say fudge and you would need to be a dodgy bastard to attempt that one but nothing would surprise me tbh specially on builds that did not have bank involved.

Gumbo

mickdw wrote: »

How about falsely declaring that builds never actually started thereby invalidating previously validated commencement notices then resubmitting short form after September.
I did say fudge and you would need to be a dodgy bastard to attempt that one but nothing would surprise me tbh specially on builds that did not have bank involved.

Very possible u less you've already received a commencement check by the BCO.

BryanF

stickybookmark wrote: »

Nah i'm gonna tell em take a hike if anyone asks me for a cert next May
the requirement is gone end of story

The requirement is not gone. Nothing has changed yet.

stickybookmark

mickdw wrote: »

If someone wasnt borrowing, it's only building control they will come looking for it.
I believe they will come looking as there will be an open job on the system.
More to the point, if the build has commenced and the professionals are on board, why would the certs not be produced anyway?

I'm interested to see what fudges come about to remove the requirement for certification for these builds that have recently started.

I'm very early in my project so I can get rid of the AC now and save money. I have other people e.g. the arch tech that designed my house or a guy I know who's an engineer but not a chartered one - that I would prefer to get on board instead of current AC

DOCARCH

stickybookmark wrote: »

I'm very early in my project so I can get rid of the AC now and save money.

No you cannot...if you have already submitted your Commencement Notice (and, by the way, you cannot submit a 'new' Commencement Notice in September!).

stickybookmark

DOCARCH wrote: »

No you cannot...if you have already submitted your Commencement Notice (and, by the way, you cannot submit a 'new' Commencement Notice in September!).

I think there is defo a case to be argued.

BryanF

stickybookmark wrote: »

I think there is defo a case to be argued.

How about having a start at arguing it here?

mullingar

Is there any way of cancelling the CN ?

mickdw

mullingar wrote: »

Is there any way of cancelling the CN ?

Not commencing within the required time frame.

Poor Uncle Tom

stickybookmark wrote: »

There's no bank so I assume no solicitor. So yeah just the building control officer. I'm very early in my project so I can get rid of the AC now and save myself money. Also he is p!ssing me off bigtime! I have other people e.g. the arch tech that designed my house, a guy I know who's an engineer but not a chartered one - that I would much prefer to get involved in the build instead of him"

If it's a new house your solicitor will need certification to register title of your property, if it's an extension your solicitor will need certification to have in case of future sale or transfer of property.

You should have the choice of who you want as your professional advisers on your own site, you're paying them after all, however, you must also comply with current legislation and current legislation is in place since March 2014 and hasn't yet changed.

Whatever pre-election placation measures any minister comes out with, will be subject to the detail attached, this latest press-release includes such smoke as "demonstrate by alternative means that they have met their general obligation to build in accordance with the minimum requirements of the building regulations." and reflections such as " a new fit-for purpose local authority inspection process will be developed. " with the greatest of intentions this can't happen in a month.

Until whatever alterations and plans that are in the pipeline become public knowledge and until the legislation changes to cater for those alterations the current legislation remains in place.

stickybookmark

what brought this lifting of the requirement for one off self builds to be included in Bcar about in the first place?

Rolling over and doing what you're told or standing up to them?

If people hadn't lobbied for fairness this change would never have come about. Now is not the time to dance for the man

Poor Uncle Tom

stickybookmark wrote: »

what brought this lifting of the requirement for one off self builds to be included in Bcar about in the first place?

Rolling over and doing what you're told or standing up to them?

If people hadn't lobbied for fairness this change would never have come about. Now is not the time to dance for the man

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your post I think this row-back has more to do with the looming elections than it has with bowing to lobbying.

No6

I also suspect the CIF lads arn't terribly interested in one off housing, hence they dont have a problem taking them out.

Strolling Bones

stickybookmark wrote: »

what brought this lifting of the requirement for one off self builds to be included in Bcar about in the first place?

Rolling over and doing what you're told or standing up to them?

If people hadn't lobbied for fairness this change would never have come about. Now is not the time to dance for the man

I have seen more than once sales fail to complete over issues such as these.
Under the "old" regs i.e. pre 2014. People don't feel so revolutionary when their lives are placed on hold.

But I am sure it would never happen to you ( everybody thinks so)

Gumbo

The Ammended Regulations will be in force by 1st September 2015.

mickdw

kceire wrote: »

The Ammended Regulations will be in force by 1st September 2015.

Anything new on this?

01Surveyor

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I don't know how fees will be impacted. But you are essentially correct.
The RIAI saw this as the creation of some sort of cash cow. Instead of doing what they should have done - loudly and publicly critising the shortfalls in the legislation as it affected house buyers - they played ball with Hogan in return for a protected status under the act. Utterly shameful.

I am afraid this assertion is incorrect. The RIAI has from the outset pointed out that the BC(A)R Building Control System is fundamentally flawed, and it continues to do so. However the RIAI has, mistakenly in my view, chosen to try to resolve matters by quiet negotiation with the DECLG. This has clearly not worked and AFAIK the RIAI will now be adopting a different and hopefully more effective approach.

Far from being a 'Cash Cow' for architects the opposite is the case with a large number (possibly the majority) of architects, including some of the largest practices, declining to provide AC services, which are apparently being provided by engineers for the most part

Strolling Bones

01Surveyor wrote: »

I am afraid this assertion is incorrect. The RIAI has from the outset pointed out that the BC(A)R Building Control System is fundamentally flawed, and it continues to do so. However the RIAI has, mistakenly in my view, chosen to try to resolve matters by quiet negotiation with the DECLG. This has clearly not worked and AFAIK the RIAI will now be adopting a different and hopefully more effective approach.

It uses - today - weasel words which are having no affect on the DOE whatsoever except to reinforce contempt for it's membership.

01Surveyor wrote: »

Far from being a 'Cash Cow' for architects the opposite is the case with a large number (possibly the majority) of architects, including some of the largest practices, declining to provide AC services, which are apparently being provided by engineers for the most part

The RIAI have let down all of it's membership. It thought it secured an advantage for it's Arch members ( don't know why) including at the expense of it's AT members ( know even less why )

01Surveyor

Strolling Bones wrote: »

It uses - today - weasel words which are having no affect on the DOE whatsoever except to reinforce contempt for it's membership.



The RIAI have let down all of it's membership. It thought it secured an advantage for it's Arch members ( don't know why) including at the expense of it's AT members ( know even less why )

Sad to say I cant fully disagree with you on either opinion.

stickybookmark

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

If it's a new house your solicitor will need certification to register title of your property

Apparently not...

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nope, land registry couldn't give a crap about a cert of compliance.
.

kceire wrote: »

Land registry never required them either.

sydthebeat

stickybookmark wrote: »

Apparently not...

You are mixing up your certificates.

Certs of compliance have nothing to do with land registry. They certify compliance with planning permission And building regulations.

Land registry certifications are different beasts altogether.