New Building Control Regs

Hairy mellon

cost of si9 for a typical house €20k (+11%). for a self build €40k (+22%)

BryanF

Hairy mellon wrote: »

cost of si9 for a typical house €20k (+11%). for a self build €40k (+22%)

research backup ?

Sarah3

Got quoted 5% by an engineer today to act as Design Certifier plus another 5% of budget to act as Assigned Certifier. Guess the Celtic Tiger is back.

sydthebeat

Sarah3 wrote: »

Got quoted 5% by an engineer today to act as Design Certifier plus another 5% of budget to act as Assigned Certifier. Guess the Celtic Tiger is back.

Nothing to do with the Celtic tiger and everything to do with Phil Hogan. ..

BryanF

Sarah3 wrote: »

Got quoted 5% by an engineer today to act as Design Certifier plus another 5% of budget to act as Assigned Certifier. Guess the Celtic Tiger is back.

You clearly haven't read the thread your posting in

RITwing

The number of commencement notices continues to fall. Well done Phil on your EU appointment - off to mess up on a continental scale now.

kkelliher

RITwing wrote: »

The number of commencement notices continues to fall. Well done Phil on your EU appointment - off to mess up on a continental scale now.

at least he will feel right at home with the bullocks........

Sarah3

BryanF wrote: »

You clearly haven't read the thread your posting in

Actually I have read most of it and my comment was following on from a previous post quoting cost of SI9 of €20k for a typical house and €40k for self build

BryanF

Sarah3 wrote: »

Actually I have read most of it and my comment was following on from a previous post quoting cost of SI9 of €20k for a typical house and €40k for self build

What's that got to do with the Celtic tiger?

Hairy mellon

Unfortunately extra costs are incurred for no consumer benefit. All stakeholders invited to participate by Phil Hogan in creating SI.9 benefit: professionals get more fees (and duties), contractors get more work, CIF get register income (+€12m p/a), and consumer gets no additional protections (even though specifications get 'defensive'). If there is a problem an owner still has to trudge through the high court. Have a look at this post on costs form Bregs Blog:


Cost of SI.9 for a typical house

I don't recall seeing an SI.9 cost breakdown for an individual house (or inspection plan/ commencement submission etc!) so this may be of some use to readers. Recently I was asked to do an assessment as to the likely additional cost exposure for SI.9 on a proposed 3-4 bed house. The owner intended was going to self-build, but called a halt to the project on cost grounds. For the study I reduced costs right down to industry minimums (€180,000 cost to build a typical house). This is by no means exhaustive but I have double-checked figures with colleagues and builders.

Say typical house €180k cost (based on average rebuild costs in industry for 3-4 bed house)
Current professional advice from Orla Fitzgerand [RIAI representative] was that S.I9 will take an extra 18 days [for a €500k project], Shane Santry [RIAI representative at CPD] stated 156 hours for a typical house [see source post below]
From certifiers we know that the hourly requirement is about correct [see three certifier posts previously published- links to follow].

In my opinion the additional costs are in 3 categories as follows:

- Professionals: 160 hours (18 days) for a €60,000 salary would give a €15,000 cost (tx 2.5) for Design and Assigned Certifier roles. This includes modest profit and overheads, insurance, travel costs and excludes vat @ 23%. If we assume this is done at cost the figure would be €12,000. Anything less than this and work would be done at a loss to the practice. So say +7% of the cost of the entire build.
- Defensive specifications: possibly +5% (see note below)
- Self-builds- Main Contractor’s profit, attendance and prelims etc. +12%

1. Professional Fees

On a €180,000 project the professional fees (at cost) for design and assigned certifiers alone are €12,000. This excludes additional fees and costs for other sub-contractor/ ancillary certifiers responsibilities which are all new and will be either borne by sub-contractors or passed onto owners. All members of the design team have additional paperwork and manufacturers and suppliers will need new insurances also. Some sub-contractors will be required to provide three certificates under the new system.

If we assume SI.9 is done at cost with no practice profit the professional fees are €12,000.

2. Specification Costs

Conservative specifications will increase costs but by how much? Specifiers will be more "careful" and some estimates suggest these more "defensive" specifications could be 5% extra. This defensive specification estimate is an average cost taking into account input from other professionals and contractors. If 5% defensive spec. seems too high, remember we have nothing in for additional ancillary certs/ sub-contractor insurance costs etc.

A 5% increase in cost due to defensive specifications is + €9,000.

3. Self-Builders

Self builders also must factor in the cost of employing a main contractor to undertake the duties they intended to do themselves. A self-builder may not do any trade or building work themselves- they may just co-ordinate others. On larger projects a builder managing sub-contractors is frequently called a 'management contractor'- this is the role that many self-builders do out of financial necessity. [On a self-build the owner frequently co-ordinates sub-contractors such as plumbers, electricians, blocklayers, carpenters etc., liaising with engineers and/or architects etc. This is quite time consuming and is where the big saving is for self-builders. Obviously where a self-builder is a tradesman they also do other work themselves. Frequently family members help out etc.]

A normal cost to employ a management contractor (builder) for a residential project would be in the region of 12%. A breakdown of this cost is as follows: a main contractor will normally charge 5% on top of all sub-contractors costs for co-ordination (called attendance); preliminary costs vary from 5-10% cover insurances, scaffolding, site facilities, signage, insurance etc. This cost is for contractors profit, attendances, co-ordination costs, salaries for foreman (or his salary), preliminaries and insurances etc. A standard performance bond cost also may be required.

This 12% total additional cost for the involvement of a main contractor is reasonable and not inflated. For a self-builder this is in addition to professional fees.

The cost to employ a main contractor is 12% of total cost + €21,600.
Conclusion

These costs are not exhaustive, but even with margins of error, serious discounts, economies of scale for multiple units, real-world costs for SI.9 are a multiple for those quoted and reiterated by the Department and the previous Minister.

SI9 cost for a typical house where there is a main contractor could be + €21,000 (12k prof fees + 9k defensive spec cost)
SI9 cost for a typical house for a self-builder could be double at + €42,600 (prof fees + spec costs + 21.6k builder costs)

RITwing

On advice from their insurers and legal advisers at least one of Ireland’s largest multi-disciplinary construction consultancies, involved in multi-million Euro commissions, has admitted it will not be undertaking the role of Assigned Certifier on any of its projects as the risk is considered too great.

source

So who is left foolish enough to take part in Hogans nonsese ?
I would not act as AC_DC for any fee.

BryanF

RITwing wrote: »

source

So who is left foolish enough to take part in Hogans nonsese ?
I would not act as AC_DC for any fee.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to avoid acting as AC/DC...
Nor is everyone trained to design/check building regs actually ellegable to act as AC/DC
Thundering f...up Of a situation

galwaytt

RITwing wrote: »

source

So who is left foolish enough to take part in Hogans nonsese ?
I would not act as AC_DC for any fee.

...whilst that is undoubtedly true, it really would be far more useful if that company, and others like them, came out in public. Because, unless the company is happy to be known, and to make some sort of public statement to that effect, it's only going to be treated as hearsay. If that company is actually mindful to make a difference, it should come out.

Otherwise the Dept is going to avoid any real wrath from anyone that can have influence. We already know the Dept don't give a monkey's anyway.

Raises a question though: if that company won't act as AC, then what purpose do they serve ? Who, and what, will they work for ? The requirement to have an AC on a project is still law. Will they just hand on all their work to some other person who will sign as AC, and on what basis ?

Poor Uncle Tom

BryanF wrote: »

Not everyone is fortunate enough to avoid acting as AC/DC...

Anyone acting as AC under the current situation is:

a) in it to make hay while the sun shines and will be gone after the first or second assault on their PI Insurance.
b) don't realise the full extent of what they are doing/signing.
c) charging enough to make it worth while (not just the actual cost of the work).

galwaytt

I'm sitting here at the Self Build show in City West now and reading the show guide and I notice something. ..

SEAI have a stand here, Revenue have a stand here, but two glaring omissions. Neither the DoE nor the RIAI have a presence.

Given the complete mess we're in it would have been a good idea for DoE to be here. I was bombarded with AC/DC questions yesterday - and I'm far from qualified. .

Ditto the RIAI.

There again, neither institution is known for a policy of openness. ..

DOCARCH

Are the engineers and SCSI there?

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

Are the engineers and SCSI there?

Don't think so. Will look and revert.

Just checked : nope, no show (sic) for them either. ..

DOCARCH

Given that it's a 'self build' show maybe its apt that none of the bodies that design and assigned certifiers come from are there !

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

Given that it's a 'self build' show maybe its apt that none of the bodies that design and assigned certifiers come from are there !

Lol.

.. Given the"permission slip" DoE gave out to self builders you'd think that's exactly why they should be here !

RITwing

galwaytt is there any organisation or body there to raise awareness or give guidance on SI 9 ?

DOCARCH

RITwing wrote: »

galwaytt is there any organisation or body there to raise awareness or give guidance on SI 9 ?

DoE should be there...they have all the information (some of which clearly remains in the heads of the mandarins!!!).

galwaytt

RITwing wrote: »

galwaytt is there any organisation or body there to raise awareness or give guidance on SI 9 ?

Not a single one.

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

DoE should be there...they have all the information (some of which clearly remains in the heads of the mandarins!!!).

Should, yes. But aren't.

Clearly some mandarins have the luxury of a Mon - Fri 39hr week job. ...

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

Not a single one.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Surely the overriding question in the whole show is "can we still self build"

galwaytt

sydthebeat wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful.

Surely the overriding question in the whole show is "can we still self build"

Well hundreds/thousands here over 2 days think 'yes', so I'll go with that for it now

Hairy mellon

DOE should have posted up a big poster

"Go home there's no more self-building in Ireland" and posted up a phone number for the CIF

organisers wouldn't have like that however...

extract off RIAI client guidance issued 1st September:

"Who can act as the Builder?

A person undertaking the role of the Builder must be competent to undertake that role. The Government is committed to establishing a statutory Register of Builders, and a voluntary Register is already in place (https://ciri.ie/).

I am a Self-Builder, can I undertake the role of the Builder?

A person can self-build only if they are competent to undertake that role. Competence is defined as a person who possesses sufficient training, experience and knowledge of the project task."

The current definition of "competent" builder under the Code of Practice (where self-building not mentioned once) is someone with minimum 3 years experience of building similar projects....

sydthebeat

i think the whole issue here boils down to the phrase "self builder"

its really a bastardised phrase thats used to describe a 'direct labour' project management system. ive had this argument many times before that the title is erroneous and opaque.

very very few "self builders" actually "self build".

so if you were to accept that you should not be allowed to actually build your own home unless you were sufficiently trained, then it makes sense.
however the regulations complete fcuk up when they require signing of the "builder" as being a "principle or director of a building company". There could be many cases where the actual signing principle or director may have never build even a dog shed in their life.... yet can sign certs because they are CIRi registered.

Hairy mellon

agreed

many "builders" are management contractors, essentially co-ordinating specialist sub-contractors for groundworks, blockwork, timber, m&e etc.

unfortunately SI9 does not permit non-builders to occupy this role: co-ordinating sub-contractors as main or "management" contractor.

while Local Authorities (on DOE advice) appear to be letting owners commence (who do not have 3 years relevant experience) it remains to be seen if owner/ builders will be allowed to sign on the dotted line on completion, and whether this will be validated. More importantly it remains to be seen if there will be conveyancing issues with self-builds (selling-on or re-financing etc).

given that the Law Society confirmed (in reply to IAOSB) that they weren't consulted by the DOE on the regulations, it looks like a risky undertaking atm... you wouldn't want to be the first one over the trench on this.

No6

As a brief aside here in Western Australia all builds over 20k must be by a registered builder unless the owner applies for and gets an owner builder licence which allows them to 'Self Build" in a similar manner to the direct labour form of building. They do have to go through a process and prove thy are competent to do the job they want to and there are courses for to get them competent if required. A similar system in Ireland would at least allow the possibility of self building.

kkelliher

DOCARCH wrote: »

Are the engineers and SCSI there?

SCSI have never being any good at promoting their members interest so thats no surprise. I still have to explain to most clients what a QS does.

Hairy mellon

No6 wrote: »

As a brief aside here in Western Australia all builds over 20k must be by a registered builder unless the owner applies for and gets an owner builder licence which allows them to 'Self Build" in a similar manner to the direct labour form of building. They do have to go through a process and prove thy are competent to do the job they want to and there are courses for to get them competent if required. A similar system in Ireland would at least allow the possibility of self building.

very sensible

kkelliher wrote: »

SCSI have never being any good at promoting their members interest so thats no surprise. I still have to explain to most clients what a QS does.

most representative bodies asleep at the wheel imo

RITwing

Every dweling which is greater than 40m2 , being extended by any amount - must comply with SI 9

source

martinn123

RITwing wrote: »

Every dweling which is greater than 40m2 , being extended by any amount - must comply with SI 9

source

I think you forgot to quote the word, " MAY".

RITwing

Why be optimistic ?

The politicians who lord it over us DARE to name themselves “legislators”!

It is clear from even this short review that they are not competent to frame legislation or write it or scrutinize it in detail and therefore are not competent to vote it into law.

Thus we are become a nation led at the highest level by fools who don’t know their jobs, who intend to bully and crucify the building professionals into taking on unlimited and unsustainable liability, while their only level of “accountability” is at the ballot box.

For some of them, it should be inside Mountjoy Jail.

* * * * * * * * *

And why are the certifying professions faced with unsustainable liability?

– Because a criminal developer ruined lives with Priory Hall.

– Because a Local Authority disavowed its primary role in ensuring buildings were built in substantial compliance with the building regulations.

– Because a competent and registered Main Contractor was NOT used.

* * * * * * * * *

And what happened in response?

Do we see legislation limiting the actions of ex-convicts in the building industry?

No.

[Why is the governance of business such that an accountant cannot practice with a criminal conviction against him but an ex convict can secure loans for millions and engage in development worth millions more?
I am talking about people with registered judgements against them and known quality control issues arising in previous developments –

Do we see legislation DEMANDING that the local authority shoulders the necessary burden of oversight and regulation, a role that – historically and currently – private capitalist interests have shown they are unable and unwilling to to competently or well?

No.

[And any doubters have only to glance at the roles of the privately owned and privately managed Lending Institutions and Estate Agents in the Banking Collapse of 2008 - with the historically incompetent Light Touch Central Bank Regulation making sure no real oversight occurred]

Do we even have an enforced statutory Register of Builders, with even the most rudimentary assessment of the competence to act in that role?

No.

[The idea that that Builders - who make the lions share of the profits from building work - are only required to self-regulate is a questionable way to address this issue. What does that Registration prove? What assessment of their work is made? Indignant self-builders are now asking the question - "How does a Main Contractor prove his competence anyway?"]

* * * * * * * * *

Instead our “legislators” talked amongst themselves:

“Let’s screw the professionals – it will look like we’re doing something to the electorate.”

In the light of the above article, I should make clear that I did not intend to write:

“To the electorate, it will look like we’re doing something.”

[I intended the dangling participle or clause because the electorate is being royally screwed for the benefit of the developers and main contractors and our lazy and incompetent "legislators" who need their party donations. The new Building Regulations confer no benefit to the Consumer. They just give them a straw man target to sue - the Assigned Certifier - who is just a decoy, behind which any criminal developer or builder - who is not now obliged to BUILD in accordance with the Building Regulations - now safely stands. Of course the "legislators", when their incompetence has run its course, can just head off into the Golden Dawn of a New Position in Europe.]

* * * * * * * * *

No spotlight is turned on these Builders and Developers, no penalty for gross negligence is imposed on them for not ensuring that the building works are compliant or that the fire safety measures are correctly implemented or even that roofs will stay on buildings if the wind blows hard – all of which were issues that actually occurred during the Celtic Tiger years.

Hairy mellon

martinn123 wrote: »

I think you forgot to quote the word, " MAY".

"MAYDAY"

RITwing

source

To all Architects, Engineers, Chartered Surveyors and fellow Architectural Technologists.

Of S.I.9, Politics and the Game of Junior B Hurling.

To me there are a few things that I think by and large escape the view of the population of Construction Professionals out there who are opposed to S.I. 9!!! These regulations were brought into force by a Department and a Minister who care little to nothing about how we might feel about these regulations or how they affect us/our livelihoods. These regulations were brought into effect for one reason and one reason only – i.e. to remove the responsibility of the Local Authority and foist it squarely onto the Construction professionals. They were looking at potentially being blamed for Priory Hall by the Public...so they made the Construction Industry the fall guys for their slip ups. In the court of Public Opinion it was “unscrupulous Builders” and “incompetent Architects” who were all to blame, and as such it was Builders and Architects who needed tighter regulation. And thus the Minister and Department played the age old political game of "Pass the buck" or in Junior B hurling parlance..."Playing the Man". Now...we as professionals operating in the real world see this as acting irresponsibly, unfairly, unjustly, and with no regard for anyone else but Politicians saving their own skins. But that is the game of politics. That is all you need to know about Politics and Politicians. Avoid fixing the problem. Find somebody else to blame, and make it their problem. Save your Dail seat and keep your votes. That's it. And that is the game we have been dragged into playing here. In the professional world we play Championship Hurling. Its challenging, its fast, its full of skill and daring and generally the best team wins. Why? Because the rules are there to protect everyone, and give everyone the best chance of succeeding if they have the required skills, determination and have a little luck too. Everyone plays to the same set of rules and generally everyone plays fair...and if you don’t you get a free or a penalty against you. If you cheat or blatantly disregard the rules then you get sent off. There are consequences and strict rules that try to give everyone a level playing field, so that the best team with the most skills comes out on top. The best team more than likely wins. But that isn’t the game we are playing here. Oh no. This is Politics. This game is played on a wet Sunday morning in a field in the middle of nowhere. Gentlemen welcome to Junior B hurling! And you may well laugh, but it’s not funny when your shins are skinned and your knuckles are bleeding and you have a black eye....and the referee is waving play on. Because the rules of this game are...you look after your own self first. The referee isn’t interested. He is a Home Town referee and will play to the crowd. A free is only a free if the crowd can see it and they complain. After that it’s a free-for-all. The burly opposition guy standing beside you is a wily old political fox. He knows his best chance of winning the ball is by hurting you first making sure you can’t get to it. There is no skill. No best man wins. It’s nasty, dirty, every man for himself and in politics your own team-mates are just as willing to pull across you as the opposition are. If you want fairness and protection from the referee then I’m sorry...you are playing hurling in the wrong field.

If you want the Department and the Minister to change their minds and act fairly then you are missing the point. That isn’t how this game is played. If you want to play like a gentleman and rely only on your skills to win the ball then you are going home in an Ambulance. If you want the referee to take notice and call a foul then you will be waiting a long long time. We as professionals are too polite. And appealing to the referee to get the other team to play fair doesn’t work. The crowd on the sidelines are the true arbiters here. They are the only people who count. The referee plays to them. They call the fouls. They decide.

Public Opinion. That makes the rules in this game. It might be a blunt instrument and by God is it fickle and contrary and is bound up more in the illusion of fair play than in actual fair play itself. Politics and playing it is illusory. What happens in the shadows, never happened. All that matters is that you hide your dirty play and if you can walk away from a challenge with the ball in your hand then you won, how you got it doesn’t really matter as long as you could disguise any foul play well enough. Architects, Engineers, Chartered Surveyors all writing letters, blogs, signing petitions, having meetings, etc. That is just a bunch of broken up team mates in a huddle moaning at why the referee won’t give them a fair game to play. It doesn’t change the game, it doesn’t affect the opposition and it leaves you wondering why you bothered to turn up in the first place. Your coach is scratching his head and crying on the side lines over the fact the referee is not playing fair. You need somebody to tell you how to at least compete in this game. And here it is. Shake yourself off. Get stuck in. And most of all understand that anything goes, it’s winning by any and all means...and the crowd call the fouls. And a note to all fellow Architectural Technologists out there. We don’t even have a team!! Some guys in the next County over might be willing to join the league, but the Home team don’t like people outside the parish playing on this field!!! So we are the younger brothers showing up with our gear bag and hurley hoping that we can maybe get picked by the bigger boys to sit on their subs bench. Do we really want to be showcasing our undoubtedly silky skills out there on that field??? Because out there we are less than inconsequential to the opposition and our team mates alike.

Construction Professionals need to get out of the little insulated huddle we are in and move away from moaning to each other about how unfair the system is. The system doesn’t care. It’s a dirtier game than we have ever played. We are too polite and being polite is seen as being weak and inconsequential. It’s laughed at and derised by the opposition. The only way this game is won is by making sure the Public start calling the fouls and see the fouls taking place. That is what Politicians and Civil Servants fear most. That means they have to start playing hurling. Playing fair. Remember how the Senior Citizens pulled that off??? Remember the Medical Card debacle??? They knew how to Play Junior B Hurling!!! They understood the rules of the game. They got fouled. They made damn sure the foul was called and seen for what it was. Dirty Play. Politicians couldn’t any longer play the man there. And the court of public opinion was going to be watching closely after that. But that takes us as a body of professionals to get out of our own huddle and get out on the streets to protest this, make the public aware and start hurting the politicians and civil servants who are trying so hard to protect their own skins. Jab your hurley into their ribs for a change. Get off the ground and shake off the muck. Stand up for ourselves. For instance....if as a group of bodies, the RIAI, Engineers Ireland and the Chartered Surveyors directed their members that, as and from a mutually agreed date,(e.g. 1st October) they should flat out refuse to be Assigned Certifiers, refuse to lodge any Commencement Notice under any terms, then the outcry would be massive. Yes it’s dirty. Yes it’s ugly. Yes it’s even playing the man, not the ball. It would grind the system to a halt. No client anywhere could build a house. Yes the backlash would be ugly and Architects, Engineers and Chartered Surveyors would be potentially in the firing line for abuse by the Public. Yes it would even hurt our pockets too. But at least the game would be visible for what it is. Not hurling...just every man for himself. And we don’t want to play that game. Let the Public see the reality of the injustice and how it directly affects them too. Most of them came to see a game of hurling. Show them it’s not what you are being allowed to play. Let the crowd see the blood on your shins and your broken knuckles. Let them call the foul. And get off your knees, stop crying, and start doing it now. Because like every game there is a time limit. We are playing to a clock here and we are running out of time. I feel that if this legislation is not seriously challenged and fought in a very public way with the Public on our side, and done within the next 6 months then we might as well give up now, because the Regulations will be here to stay. RIAI EGM's, drawing up alternatives, bitching to the opposition about how dirty they are WON’T WORK. WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND THIS NOW!!! The Public hold the key. Get everyone involved and point the blame back squarely at the Minister, Government and Civil Service...they won’t stop fouling us unless we do. As Michael Collins best put it, our best weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to be participants in a situation where our collective professional lives are at the whim of a political game of pass the buck. Don't engage. Don't play their game. With every Commencement Notice that we lodge we strengthen their resolve and give them solace that they have won, we are cowed, beaten, and yes we may be giving out, but they aren't losing any votes or any sleep over this. Until Politicians face a reeal threat of lost votes they will happily ignore us all and keep S.I.9 on the statute books.

Hairy mellon

spot on- goal scored!

galwaytt

RITwing wrote: »

source

Hmmm.

Lovely and all as the wordsmithing is, it's actually part of the problem it itself decries: it's wordsmithing to a closed audience.

And loath and all as I am to admit, the chances of the public getting behind any movement to do anything about S.I.9 is, frankly, beyond microscopic. This is because this is not a mainstream issue. Or certainly not perceived to be one. It is above and beyond the normal sphere of interest of most people - and I mean this in a nice way. Those not buying/selling/extending/building anew remain to all intents and purposes, unaffected.

Let me give you some equally - actually more - onerous issues of greater and wider public import, which affect a much greater audience, and which "we, the public" have similarly failed to challenge:
Health care & medical cards - save the Grey Revolution
NPPR
LPT
Water charges
USC
Pension Levy
Motor tax
Fuel excises

Those items directly affect millions on a daily basis, yet "we" cannot muster enough support to present an effective challenge.

What chance then of them coming to take action on a "peripheral" issue (as they might see it), SI9 ?

So, while you might think we're all inside some of Kumbaya huddle outside site offices around the country, the reality is if you think nothing will happen now - just you wait til we ourselves take our foot off the gas. The instant 'we' do that, it's game over (sic).

...er, discuss ?? :pac:

RITwing

To simplify -
Hogan and his ministers simply passed the most expedient law from their perspective. Dismissing all the careful knowleable and broad vision commentry lodged during consultation It's true purpose is to protect the state. The leadership of the SCSI , IEI and RIAI played along because they perceived an advantage. Incredibly bad and short sighted leadership all round.

Ordinary citizens are being cheated here and ordinary practising architects, engineers and surveyors have not got a mountain , but a range of moutains to climb to show that.

What can those at the coal face otherwise do now ?

What I think will happen is that when activity recovers from it's ( still current historic ) low then the next DOE minister will have no choice but to make further changes . When many many people realise the extra red tape and expense that will attach to even modest domestic extension there will be a massive negative reaction. And the traditional would be self builder will not just go away. Not many Joe Publics are being confronted yet by SI 9 but in time that will happen.

Another snake in the long grass is the PI industry. They are reactive not pro active. In other words they will not react in a very significant manner untill a cliams pattern arises from SI 9. We may need to wait 3-5 years for that imo.

In the meantime those of us who can see things clearly have to bide our time.

And hope we do not sign a career ending document in the meantime.

sydthebeat

Heard yesterday of a client given a figure of €53, 000 for professional services from start to finish for a large rural one off.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Heard yesterday of a client given a figure of €53, 000 for professional services from start to finish for a large rural one off.

E53K for what? What professional services?

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

E53K for what? What professional services?

Design, planning and SI9 requirements.

Charlie-Bravo

Was that just an architect's fee for elements in his/her field? If so, what would the extra fees be on QS, project manager, engineer? I am sure there's plenty missing from the €53k which needs to be made up!

sydthebeat

astrofluff wrote: »

Was that just an architect's fee for elements in his/her field? If so, what would the extra fees be on QS, project manager, engineer? I am sure there's plenty missing from the €53k which needs to be made up!

I've just said what it was for.

And your completely missing the point. The point is that the fees required for si9 compliance have turned into multiples of the original €1k -€3k extra that big Phil had originally put out.

This job of course is not going ahead with that quote.

Charlie-Bravo

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

DOCARCH

...must be a big house!

sydthebeat

astrofluff wrote: »

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

Sincere Apologies, reading through a hazy head !!

sydthebeat

astrofluff wrote: »

Not missing the point - just confirming that even the €53k wasn't the full fee for professional input on the project.

Sincere Apologies, reading through a hazy head !!

Queen of Sheebs

We're building an extension onto our home. We employed an architect... Cost about €3000 to bring us to the construction drawings. We are trying to register as a self-build as my husband's dad is a retired builder and is offering to do the roof for us. We have a building contractor who is going to do the grounds work, raft, demolition, block work and plastering and finish the site. He may also be supplying the electrician and plumber. He is happy to work with my husband's father. We have an engineer who is doing the structural drawings and has quoted for us to be the assigned certifier for the project. However, he has quoted an additional €500 plus vat for being a "project Supervisor" for all aspects of health and safety on the project. Can anyone please advise where we stand in relation to this?? Fees for the new regulations are getting out of control!!!! Thanks.

DOCARCH

Queen of Sheebs wrote: »

....he has quoted an additional €500 plus vat for being a "project Supervisor" for all aspects of health and safety on the project. Can anyone please advise where we stand in relation to this??

This way: http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Construction/homeowners_guidance.pdf