New Building Control Regs

ml100

Don't we have a new DOE minister?, what's his view on si9? has he commented on it yet?

Hairy mellon

here is a good post on the extent of "red tape" for a typical house now.

mind-boggling....click on jpeg in post

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/architects-overview-of-regulations-for-a-dwelling/

RORY O CONNOR

The self builder can appoint themselves as the builder and then sub the work out to contractors. There is this myth that you need to appoint a builder-you don't

If you are appointing yourself the builder you are then the employer of the subcontractor so you will need to provide insurance for your site and be aware of Health and Safety issues, However if you have a good experienced construction professional as your assigned certifier he/she can give you all the advice and support you need for you to take on the role of the builder/employer. It sounds a bit daunting but its not.

.

RORY O CONNOR

Queen of Sheebs wrote: »

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.

If your extension is less that 40 square meters you do not need an assigned certifier so you are being ripped off by that engineer. You do not need to register as a self build.

The builder should be taking responsibility to ensure the build is compliant with building current regs. Get it in writing that all works will be compliant with current regs- December 2013 new regs came into place. It is the builders responsibility to work to all Health and safety requirements. Is the engineer going to be there every day to ensure they men are working safely.

Hairy mellon

read here- law society take on self-building:

http://www.iaosb.com/law society of ireland - update on building control (amendment) regulations 2014.html

and here attorney general letter seeking clarification (no reply back yet afaik):

http://www.iaosb.com/letter_to_attorney_general,_maire_whelan_sc_from_iaosb_regarding_s.i.9.html

the situation is far from clear and self-builders should be aware of significant risk of invalidation on completion. The Department is making this up as they go along, and critically the Law Society were not party to the formation of SI.9. Beware.

Hairy mellon

apologies link doesnt work to iaosb sire for law society letter- heres the bregs blog post on it:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/law-society-response-to-self-builders/


Following on from a complaint to the Attorney General and letter to the Law Society querying the status of self-builders under the new Building Regulations introduced in March 2014, the representative body for self-builders (IAOSB) have received the following response from the the Law Society.

Quote: “…our profession had no role in the policy underlying the regulations or either the process or the forms required…It is clear to us that the understandable wish of people to build houses by direct labour is not reflected in the manner in which the regulations and forms were prepared…The guidelines include a comment that self builders with no experience acting as a builder might have difficulties in getting an architect, engineer or surveyor who is willing to undertake the task of acting as an assigned certifier.”

Letter to IAOSB suggests:

The Law Society were left out and should have been involved
Self-builders have been left out and it’s not the Law Society’s fault
The Law Society confirmed that professionals probably shouldn’t certify self-builds under SI9
The Law Society can’t advise other professions
The Law Society have sent the problem straight back to Department

Hairy mellon

it si unclear whether the 40sqm exclusion is cumulative- there have been at least 3 invalidations dur to this interpretation by local authorities.

apparently a clarification is due out shortly on this

here is a post on this also by a SCSI member:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/dangling-participles-and-why-all-extensions-may-now-require-compliance-with-s-i-9-2014/

mods please delete if posting links are inappropriate

The following opinion piece was submitted on 16th September 2014 by Nigel Redmond, a Registered Building Surveyor. It is a follow-up comment on a previous post “ALERT | Owners may need Certifiers on porch extensions?“. Concerns continue to be raised about possible ambiguities in the wording of S.I. 9 and their implications for floor area calculations. Varying interpretations have already arisen between different Building Control Authorities. The writer sought a determination on this issue from the BCMS and a BCA but without success to date.

Why all extensions may now require compliance with S.I.9: 2014

Here is a quote from page 5 of S.I.9: 2014

(2) The requirements of paragraph (1)(b) shall apply to the following works and buildings-

(b) an extension to a dwelling involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,

I wish to point out that part (b) lacks complete clarity and can be interpreted in two different ways and possibly three. The issue is the word ‘involving’. It is a ‘dangling participle’. A ‘dangling participle’ modifies the wrong noun.

I give two examples of this:

“I saw the trailer peeking through the window”.

Presumably, this means the speaker was peeking through the window, but the placement of the clause “peeking through the window” makes it sound as though the trailer were doing so. The sentence can be recast as, “Peeking through the window, I saw the trailer.”

Similarly, in “She left the room fuming”, it is possibly the room, rather than “she”, that was fuming. It may be preferable to write “Fuming, she left the room”, to avoid any ambiguity.

In the case of the aforementioned part (b), the participle ‘involving’ could refer to (a) the dwelling, (b) the extension, or (c) both together after construction and it is not immediately obvious that total floor area of 40 square metres refers to one in particular.

It is acknowledged that the most likely intention of S.I.9: 2014, was to refer ‘involving’ to the extension itself, however a simple comma would had make this legally absolute:

i.e. an extension to a dwelling, involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres,

or better still

an extension, involving a total floor area greater than 40 square metres, to a dwelling.

Part (b) has left the subject implied and Assigned Certifiers are taking for granted they know what it means. This has clearly occurred due to the word ‘involving’, and is caused by the poor writing strategy to this part of the statutory document.

S.I.9: 2014 stands on its own two feet and Assigned Certifiers cannot rely upon the Code of Practice for its LEGAL clarification. Extraordinarily, part (b) has now wrote into Law, that if the dwelling is over 40 square metres, any extension constructed to it, regardless of the extension size, requires compliance with S.I.9: 2014. This beggars belief.

It is also important to point out that the wording to this section changed when amending S.I.80, so there is nowhere to claim it was overlooked. It is what it is.

Assigned Certifiers now must turn to their respective professional bodies for clarification on this matter as well as the BCMS and the Department of the Environment. It must be pointed out there is no retrospective compliance for illegal developments. Therefore, until this matter is clarified, a view could be taken that it is inadvisable for professionals to issue Commencement Notices, supervise and certify any extensions constructed to a 40 square metre plus dwelling house after March 1st 2014.

This now throws any extension planned to a dwelling house into complete disarray until part (b) is legally amended. Amending part (b) would confirm that hundreds of extensions have indeed been constructed since March 1st 2014 illegally. However this clarification can instead be avoided by abandoning S.I.9: 2014.

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

December 2013 new regs came into place. It is the builders responsibility to work to all Health and safety requirements.

What piece of legislation was this? Link please???

RORY O CONNOR

Sorry Typo- It was December 2012 that the majority of the current building regs came into place due to revisions or additions-Particularly TDG Part L.

It clearly states on BR SE 9202 which is Engineers Ireland certificate of Compliance form which has been produced in conjunction with the Law society of Ireland and is very similar to the RIAI Certificate for compliance:

It is the responsibility of the Main contractor to ensure that the construction of the works complies with the drawings and specifications and standards of construction required by the building regulations.

Contractually and by Statue the main contractor is obliged to have the required knowledge, skill and expertise in the supply of his services and is obliged to undertake the supply with due care.

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Sorry Typo- It was December 2012 that the majority of the current building regs came into place due to revisions or additions-Particularly TDG Part L.

Not the case...you've just proved my point (from another thread).

Only Part A of the Building Regulations are dated 2012...none of the other parts (B to M) of the Building Regulations.

pconn062

Hairy mellon wrote: »

here is a good post on the extent of "red tape" for a typical house now.

mind-boggling....click on jpeg in post

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/architects-overview-of-regulations-for-a-dwelling/

It's actually incredible when you see it laid out like that. :eek:

Hairy mellon

that's for one house...

and the government is wondering why housing applications and completions are down since last year?

gooner99

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

RORY O CONNOR

gooner99 wrote: »

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

I don't think so. During the boom times many developers self certified and then problems became apparent further down the line. An example of this was during the big freeze several years ago water supply pipes froze because they has not been installed deep enough into the ground so that they would not be affected by the cold air temps. Priory hall is another fine example where there was no certification in place. What the new system will do in theory is make people-Engineers, Architects etc culpable and traceable as they will have signed off at every stage of the build. It should in theory make for better quality and higher standards of construction.

sydthebeat

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

I don't think so. During the boom times many developers self certified and then problems became apparent further down the line. An example of this was during the big freeze several years ago water supply pipes froze because they has not been installed deep enough into the ground so that they would not be affected by the cold air temps. Priory hall is another fine example where there was no certification in place. What the new system will do in theory is make people-Engineers, Architects etc culpable and traceable as they will have signed off at every stage of the build. It should in theory make for better quality and higher standards of construction.

incorrect

it was certified, by an RIAI registered architect.

Hairy mellon

gooner99 wrote: »

Could it be that all of this is designed to halt self building one off houses in rural areas and move to developments within town boundaries. Isn't that what they wanted to achieve in any case?

no- self-building is now essentially banned under SI.9 everywhere: recently DCC tried to sell on a plot in Dublin suitable for a group of self-builders unsuccessfully

this applies to D4 or donegal- self-bulding, where an owner (without 3 years experience as a builder) can't operate role of management contractor (builder) co-ordinating sub-contractors.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

incorrect

it was certified, by an RIAI registered architect.

Not correct either!

It was certified by nobody.

An RIAI registered practice was engaged to prepare the design...the practice was not engaged by the developer to carry out any inspections during construction...but...were then asked to provide Opinions on Compliance for the finished development based on visual inspection only of the completed works.

There is/was a specific form/format of Opinion on Compliance where the architect has no input during the construction stage, agreed with the Law Society, purely for the conveyance of the property...daft as that may seem, but that's the way the vast majority of builder/developer built houses and apartments in this country were sold in the last 25 years!

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

...but...were then asked to provide Opinions on Compliance for the finished development based on visual inspection only of the completed works.
!

well to be fair thats exactly what i was referring to and what was know at the time as the standard "certification"

so it was certified......

Hairy mellon

no official investigation or audit of priory hall was ever published

no report with recommendations

priory hall is the 'poster boy' for si.9 and the department hasn't even reviewed the case to see who did what, when and what should be done to stop the same happening.

IMHO there is nothing in the new legislation to stop the same thing happening- owners will still be left trudging the courts.

Look at the new minister's answer to queries re redress for owners affected by mica in blockwork in donegal...

you're on your own.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

so it was certified......

No.

mandy gall

Hairy mellon wrote: »

no- self-building is now essentially banned under SI.9 everywhere: recently DCC tried to sell on a plot in Dublin suitable for a group of self-builders unsuccessfully

this applies to D4 or donegal- self-bulding, where an owner (without 3 years experience as a builder) can't operate role of management contractor (builder) co-ordinating sub-contractors.

hear, hear - sad state of affairs now...

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

No.

ah come on now....

if your arguing semantics about what "certification" is then youre being deliberately disingenuous.

An RIAI architect signed a piece of paper to state in his opinion the build was substantially in compliance with planning permission and building regulations.

no matter what way revisionists would like to dress this up, this was what was commonly know as "certification" at the time.

the sales of those apartments went through based on this 'opinion on compliance'. it transpired afterward that even the bloody layout of those apartments were not in compliance with fire regs, never mind the construction.

maybe certain vested interests would like to sweep this ineptitude under the carpet and pretend it didnt exist, but anyone who followed those issues as closely as was followed here would know the truth.


edit: some research has shown me that the form of opinion on compliance provided from the developer on priory hall was in fact 1b ((architectural service provided (design and (Apartments) construction)).
these were provided as evidence for the FACC.

Hairy mellon

in the absence of a formal investigation into priory hall, it's quite likely that all the paperwork required under the old system of building reg compliance was in place at time of conveyancing of individual units- visual only certs of compliance for building regulations, planning certs etc. The problem in this case appears to be common areas and areas not visible on completion: external walls and fire-proofing etc.

without a formal published report we will all be going on heresay imo

the fact that a report was not published suggests that all the required paperwork was in place...and the building was defective. Don't forget the local authority purchased a number of units in Priory Hall also and one would assume these were the subject of the local authority's comprehensive due-diligence. The same rigorous process applied to thousands of units bought by the state over the past 20 years....(PH may only be tip of the iceberg)

if all the units had the required paperwork, sold on and conveyanced ok, then were found to be defective- this points towards the accepted system of building control being not fit-for-purpose. In this case self-certification building-control.

Our new system is supposed to be different- only problem it remains self-certification. Unfortunately no change- more paperwork, more cost and ultimately no additional consumer protections. A wasted opportunity

Hairy mellon

Dont take my word for it:

here is an assessment of SI.9 by Graham Usher, resident representative in Priory Hall

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/lessons-of-priory-hall-were-not-learned-in-the-creation-of-new-building-control-regulations-bregs-grahamusher/

very interesting short interview with RTE by Graham Usher
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/graham-usher-raises-concerns-about-the-new-building-regulations-bregs-prioryhall/

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

...

without a formal published report we will all be going on heresay imo

....

from the dail record

signed copies of RIAI Form 1 — The Architect’s Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations (the form for use where professional architectural service has been provided at the design and construction stage of the relevant building or works) were provided by the developer to the Department’s inspector in support of the FACC application.

These forms for Priory Hall were signed by a registered member of the RIAI and accompanied by the RIAI Membership Stamp confirming that architectural services were provided at design and construction stages; that designs (based on drawings submitted by the signatory) are in substantial compliance with the Building Regulations; and that fire safety certificates were properly obtained. The form is completed by the inclusion of the statement that “in the opinion of the Architect concerned, the construction of the relevant Building or Works is in substantial compliance with the Building Regulations.”

so it was certified....

Hairy mellon

certified, examined, conveyanced... and defective.

Hairy mellon

makes for stiff reading:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/riai-news-alert-summary-of-5-senior-counsel-opinions-on-bcar-si-9/

galwaytt

Hairy mellon wrote: »

makes for stiff reading:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/riai-news-alert-summary-of-5-senior-counsel-opinions-on-bcar-si-9/

Indeed, and even within it the legal experts don't all agree either.

Hairy mellon

yes- clarity will come in the courts unfortunately for all concerned

galwaytt

Hairy mellon wrote: »

yes- clarity will come in the courts unfortunately for all concerned

...am witnessing the merry-go-round on a site atmo, where no-one wants to sign anything, yet all want to start working, but no-one wants to sign anything.........get the idea ?

And it isn't even a self-build.

Bloody nightmare.

Hairy mellon

not really- previous system was a merry-go-round where solicitors won

new system will be a slightly different merry-go-round where solicitors still win

this is a good article here:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/private-lifts-and-sunny-views-but-still-a-real-housing-mess-30630737.html

galwaytt

galwaytt wrote: »

...am witnessing the merry-go-round on a site atmo, where no-one wants to sign anything, yet all want to start working, but no-one wants to sign anything.........get the idea ?

And it isn't even a self-build.

Bloody nightmare.

Well my merry-go-round got sorted this a.m. Arch is no longer on the job, and the DC/AC roles have been taken on by a new party as a package, for 1/3 the price the Arch wanted for DC alone. New guys a registered CS.

Got official notification from BCMS that we're a 'go' for onsite next week. Tfft.


I met a company in Dundalk last week too, and they are packaging DC/AC roles for approx €6k per project (one off house).

Be interesting to see how it beds down into the future...

sydthebeat

yeah i can see engineers and surveyors taking on these services in the vacuum of the RIAI squabbling.

whether or not its a clever thing is another story...they race to the bottom has already begun

RORY O CONNOR

Engineers Ireland running a course in early November to help clear up misconceptions that seem to be flowing all over the place. I have heard of one individual who has paid out €20K for an AS which is crazy money.

Hairy mellon

one architect i heard of cant even get ancillary certificates from appointed design team, let alone sub-contractors

do any of them have a suite of recommended documents ready to go, even for a house? ACEI, SCSI or RIAI?

Inspection plan/ form/ tender clauses/ CPR2013/ completion stage docs?

Surely there is some best-practice template out there?

RORY O CONNOR

From chatting with Dublin corporation recently trying to find out from them what documentation they want from me to get the final completion certification it would appear my site inspection plan/diary and the form downloaded from the BCA site is all they want.

Ancillary certification which I presume includes the final BER cert, the electrician's RECI cert, certs from the joiner, certs from the glazer, the plumber plus my certs for the foundation and steel elements does not seem to be required-or if it does they don't know its required!!!

Will23

Ancillary Certs are not a legal requirement under the act, it is up to the assigned certifyer to specify the level of ancillary certification he/she requires for design and inspection.

If you chose not to request/demand an ancillary cert for an element you haven't designed, you are opening yourself up to liability for that element.

The level of certification required will depend on the complexity of the project and the capability of the contractor I.e. Based on risk...

Gumbo

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Ancillary certification which I presume includes the final BER cert, the electrician's RECI cert, certs from the joiner, certs from the glazer, the plumber plus my certs for the foundation and steel elements does not seem to be required-or if it does they don't know its required!!!

DCC will not require these docs. They are Anchillary Certificates to cover your backside, the AC's Final Completion Certificate is what matters.

Also remember that the inspection plan which is uploaded at commencement is a draft plan, you are required to update that with the actual inspection plan carried out at completion.

RORY O CONNOR

Thanks for this. I think also that Homebond are offering a course in regard to what the actual process is and whilst its a bit longwinded apparently does prove itself to be useful in the end.

Gumbo

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Thanks for this. I think also that Homebond are offering a course in regard to what the actual process is and whilst its a bit longwinded apparently does prove itself to be useful in the end.

I hear that DCC staff can be quite helpful if you get the right one on the phone

RORY O CONNOR

DCC have been very helpful.

Hairy mellon

dcc are the most p to speed it would seem

they have a very helpful bcms guide

Hairy mellon

looks at least DIT is taking architectural technologists situation more seriously than others:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/architectural-technologists-architects-parity-of-esteem/

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

looks at least DIT is taking architectural technologists situation more seriously than others:

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/architectural-technologists-architects-parity-of-esteem/

Absolutely useless lip service.

If they have any real interest they would have already lobbied hard for inclusion on the register. I think they see the back lash, see the real threat of their technology course doing of the face of the earth, and are shooting at the hip here

BryanF

This article suggests that regulation does 'not depress construction' amongst other beauties.. http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-uk-seeks-to-emulate-irish-model-of-development-planning-and-construction/

martinn123

Someone is not following this Thread.

http://www.irishconstruction.com/recovery_in_residential_construction_gains_momentum.PAGE3811.html

The National Housing Construction Index, compiled and issued by consultancy Link2Plans, found that in the first eight months of the year there had been significant increases in both the number of planning applications and the number of building projects getting under way.

The study said the largest year-on-year gains across the country for project commencements took place in Monaghan, which was up by 115 per cent, Cork, up 79 per cent, Westmeath, up 63 per cent, Donegal, up 63 per cent and Sligo up by 60 per cent.

galwaytt

BryanF wrote: »

This article suggests that regulation does 'not depress construction' amongst other beauties.. http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-uk-seeks-to-emulate-irish-model-of-development-planning-and-construction/

Jesus wept. I can only speak for ourselves, but 3/4 of what we do is in the UK and I think it's we who should be following them, not the other way around......

Hairy mellon

Ronan Lyons seems to think added red-take of regs may be contributing to continued slowdown:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/private-lifts-and-sunny-views-but-still-a-real-housing-mess-30630737.html

"The point is that, when introducing new regulation, governments in the EU are supposed to undertake a regulatory impact analysis. They need to be able to answer the question: what will the impact of a proposed new regulation be on society and on the economy? Given that there is no agreed estimate of the cost of BCARs on a new unit, this clearly has not been done."

No regulatory impact assessment means we are relying on hearsay and anecdote for estimates of cost.

Minister's assessment of €1k- €3k per unit wouldn't cover a Part L thermal bridge assessment let alone certifier costs or contractor/specification costs under SI.9. Industry estimates costs for a typical house range from €22k for a typical house, to over €40k for a self-build. Hopeless advance preparation assessment by minister Hogan and Dept (similar to IW unfolding debacle).

Read take on Constantin Gurdgiev here. Looks like a arger number of planning applications all-right, however these are for smaller works:
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/09/2592014-irish-property-prices-scary.html

quote: " Planning Permissions for Dwellings stood at 1,766 in H1 2014, up on 1,634 in H1 2013, but down on 1,899 in H1 2012. Total floor area associated with PPs for Dwellings stood at 563,000 sq.m. in H1 2012, rising to 727,000 sq.m. in H1 2013 and falling to 632,000 sq.m. in H1 2014"

Commencements after 6 months of SI9 on the Building Control Management System were running at 60% levels of 2013 (still way down)-
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/commencement-notices-6-months-after-s-i-9/

Hairy mellon

galwaytt wrote: »

Jesus wept. I can only speak for ourselves, but 3/4 of what we do is in the UK and I think it's we who should be following them, not the other way around......

couldn't agree more. Look here (from breg blog again):

The World Bank “Doing Business” Report 2014 was mentioned by Minister Richard Bruton in January of 2014 (Irish Times 5/01/14). The construction industry was specifically mentioned as one key area for improvement. Currently we rank 115th out of 189 countries in “Dealing with construction permits”. The UK ranks 27th.

Based on the World Bank example of a 1300 SqM production/warehouse building, the cost of statutory permissions (planning and building control) in the UK are less than 15% the cost of our system here.

The cost to obtain all relevant statutory permissions for this one building type in the UK is a little over €19,000 and takes much less time. This cost includes 100% independent building inspections by a licensed building inspector. The cost for a similar building in Ireland is over €130,000 (incl. planning levies) and takes considerably longer.

Links to previous report comparing same project, uk vs ireland:

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/united-kingdom/dealing-with-construction-permits

http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/ireland/dealing-with-construction-permits

AND this was before additional private sector costs of 'reinforced self-certification' kicked in March this year. SI9 costs conveniently won't show up as they are private sector costs- delays will however.

Hairy mellon

kceire wrote: »

DCC will not require these docs. They are Anchillary Certificates to cover your backside, the AC's Final Completion Certificate is what matters.

Also remember that the inspection plan which is uploaded at commencement is a draft plan, you are required to update that with the actual inspection plan carried out at completion.

'One name on the register' (and a 'private archive'!)

Sources close to those working on the delivery of SI9 have indicated that the BCMS system may not be expanded for Completion documents as planned.

Assigned Certifiers might only be asked to upload the Certificate of Compliance (Completion), signed by the AC and the builder.

Some professionals who believe it leaves them right back at the 'uninsurable' SI80 and that all liability will fall on the AC as the lone 'mark' named on the local authority Building Register.

The extraordinary efforts of ACs to compile lists of Ancillary Certificates, Ancillary Inspections Reports, as-built drawings and Testing Certs might just result in a box of files in the corner of the office.