New Building Control Regs

Poor Uncle Tom

Hairy mellon wrote: »

'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.

It's all in the "chain of blame" and very little to do with actual responsibility. Presently the AC has the target painted rather brightly on their PII as being the place to go for ALL recompense, it is then up to the AC (separately I might add) to chase a contractor/sub contractor responsible for a defect and attempt to claw back losses incurred.

Hairy mellon

yes and no approved frameworks or templates for good practice available. Recipe for disaster...

martinn123

Who to Believe,

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

Recovery in residential construction gains momentum

The recovery in the housing sector continues to gather momentum, according to newly published data.
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.

It said that when compared with the first eight months of 2013 nationally, project commencements were up by more than 40 percent, while the number of new planning applications had risen in excess of 12 per cent.

OR

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/commencement-notices-33-weeks-on-october-9th/

Currently commencement notices are running 30% below 2013 levels which was an historic low point in construction industry output. Notwithstanding the late pick-up of commencements and recent hype in the media, we still have some way to go to even equal the very weak output achieved last year.

suppose it depends on your attitude to Statistics, ( lies, damn lies, etc )

Hairy mellon

Link2Plans spinning numbers...

Look at CSO from 10th October: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pbci/productioninbuildingandconstructionindexquarter22014/#.VEjiyhxVd

"The volume of output in building and construction increased by 4.1% in the second quarter of 2014 when compared with the preceding period… The annual rise in the volume of output reflects year-on-year increases of 23.4% and 8.5% respectively in non-residential building work and civil engineering. Residential Building decreased by 8.8% in the year to Quarter 2 2014"

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Link2Plans spinning numbers...

they seems to have very pulled out of my arse arbitary project value costs ... they seem to assume a standard €107 per sq ft for all projects no matter where in the country or the site conditions.

Hairy mellon

€107 doesnt make any sense

replacement value for typical house higher than this (any of the insurance calculators etc)- from memory €175k for 1200 sqft (pre SI9 cost)

RORY O CONNOR

Hairy mellon wrote: »

€107 doesnt make any sense

replacement value for typical house higher than this (any of the insurance calculators etc)- from memory €175k for 1200 sqft (pre SI9 cost)

TYPICAL PRICING IS €1300 PER SQUARE METER

galwaytt

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

TYPICAL PRICING IS €1300 PER SQUARE METER

€1363 is what I have, to builders finish. No kitchen or furnishings. Replacement cost would therefore be higher.

kkelliher

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

TYPICAL PRICING IS €1300 PER SQUARE METER

Typical based on what? There is no such thing as a typical one off house. I would think €1300 per square meter is very much a minimum budget for anyone looking to build but it will all depend on spec.

RITwing

martinn123 wrote: »

Who to Believe,

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



OR

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/commencement-notices-33-weeks-on-october-9th/



suppose it depends on your attitude to Statistics, ( lies, damn lies, etc )

One is attempting to sign you up so you do not "miss out" on all that busines oportunity if you work in construction. They have a direct vested interest in pretending that there is more construction activity than there really is.

The other is a comment on BCMS stats. The good folks in the BCMS get their Croke Park protected salaries paid no matter what the stats say.

Hope that helps.

.

Hairy mellon

agreed.

spot the vested interest before reading...

RITwing

Who saw any of this coming?

the new building regulations are as shambolic as the old ones but they now have some lipstick on to make them look better.

commencement notices (which indicate the start of construction) are averaging 100 per week this year, in 2013 it was 130 per week, we are about 23% below last year’s figures

nothing to stop a cowboy who can do what they did before because the system allows for a ‘builder/building owner/assigned certifier’ all to be the one entity.

but you could get an architect from anywhere else in the EU who is licenced to operate in Ireland, or somebody who is under financial pressure and push them to certify to receive payment – something near impossible to police.

At the same time these regulations make self-build virtually obsolete, stripping out about 800 houses a year, with adverse effects on people in rural Ireland who won’t obtain any upside from the higher costs and regulations

here’s the ‘how to’ to be a rogue developer. Simply set up a limited company and get a vulnerable engineer from abroad who is considered competent to run it, to do this you register with one of the organisations, the rejection rate is low, if you have the qualifications you’ll likely get through the application process.

You then get that firm to do all the forms and certificates and once the units are all sold you shut down the company and fire the assigned certifier, there is nothing to control the directorships where the builder is the director of the firm doing the assigned certification.

Perhaps what we should really do is ponder why we are ranked 128th out of 189 nations by The World Bank when it comes to our construction process. Our neighbours in the UK are 17th.

We dropped 11 rankings in the last year alone, we now rank below such luminary economies as Algeria and strife torn Democratic Republic of Congo, but we are ahead of Bolivia (only by one place though)

source

Hairy mellon

don't worry- homebond is back with a solution

one-stop shop foundation design, certifier costs plus defects insurance for €2k


http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/homebond-assigned-certifier-defects-liability-policy-for-e2000/

RITwing

The RIAI reaction - source

Ordinary Resolution 1
“For the reasons outlined above and in the interests of the Registered Members, the consumer and the wider construction industry, we the Registered Members, call for the RIAI Council to adopt as their first priority a policy to seek publicly the revocation of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations: S.I.9 of 2014 and its replacement by a system which better protects the consumer and to actively reach out to other groups to seek support for that policy.”

Decision: defeated by 165 to 102 votes.

Ordinary Resolution 3
“In response to the housing crisis and to ensure that the planned house building programme will provide well-built and sustainable homes under a cost-effective Building Control system, we request the Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government Mr. Alan Kelly TD:

to bring forward the review of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations S.I.9 that is planned for 2015;
to undertake a full Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations;
to review the limitations on self-building that is a constraint on housing supply under the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations.”
Decision: Defeated by a four to one majority (through a show of hands).

Ordinary Resolution 2
“That the registered members endorse and confirm their support for the decision of the
Council made at the July 2014 Council Meeting to develop a working document on Building
Control that would propose amendments to S.I.9 of 2014 and constructively engage with
stakeholders in order to realise the best interests of the profession for the long term”.

Decision: Carried by a three to one majority (through a show of hands).

RITwing

Hairy mellon wrote: »

don't worry- homebond is back with a solution

one-stop shop foundation design, certifier costs plus defects insurance for €2k


http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/homebond-assigned-certifier-defects-liability-policy-for-e2000/

when will they pay out for pyrites ? ........

Hairy mellon

RITwing wrote: »

when will they pay out for pyrites ? ........

very good question

Hairy mellon

any minutes or record yet of previous RIAI agm?

RITwing

And so - what value is any "warranty" issued by Homebond. To a person other than a developer

DOCARCH

RITwing wrote: »

The RIAI reaction - source

@ RITwing. Note that all these motions were debated, for and against, by a number of people, on both sides, and without any input of the RIAI executive...then the motions were voted on (on their merits).

If a vote was taken on are people happy with SI9, then I can can guarantee you this would be defeated 99 to 1!

It's how best to deal with the law of the land, that is in place, that's the question.

The problem with the motions that were defeated was there was too much other stuff all rolled into the motion.

RITwing

DOCARCH wrote: »

It's how best to deal with the law of the land, that is in place, that's the question.

The answer is to challenge the bad law for the good of the wider society. For there are none better than architects to understand intimately the defects of this law.

But architects voted to

realise the best interests of the profession

Or am I reading that wrong?

DOCARCH

RITwing wrote: »

The answer is to challenge the bad law for the good of the wider society. For there are none better than architects to understand intimately the defects of this law.

But architects voted to

Or am I reading that wrong?

Because...there are a group preparing a very detailed and workable proposal for revisions to SI9. I know who is in that group and many were/are definitely anti-SI9. These proposals will not be finalised until early in the New Year. A review of SI9 has been scheduled for the New Year. If the motion was carried to seek an early review of SI9 - and the early review was somehow facilitated by the DoECLG - the proposals may not be finalised in time for review...pointless, in my opinion, to vote to have a review brought back a couple of weeks and not have a proposal.

In my view better to go with a solution than simply be hostile...politicians and civil servants are far more open to solutions (to save face).

RITwing

We see things very differently. The majority of RIAI architects are wanting only to pick a nicer shade of colour for gorillas lipstick and they are doing so only to attempt to protect their own interests. By their own words they demonstrate this - the stated purpose of Ordinary Resolution 2 passed at the EGM

to realise the best interests of the profession for the long term

They have a duty to all who may build buy or use a building in Ireland to be "hostile" here.

A duty to hold an inept govt dept and craven local authority management to account for the sake of wider society
- the first to frame equitable legislation
- the second to enforce compliance as that legislation provides for it to do so.

Instead the majority RIAI architects seek their own advantages imagining some income stream is now generated for them by the requirements of SI 9 for all wishing to extend 40m2 ( or less perhaps ) to hire one of their members.

For that they deserve the contempt of all society reflected back on them to add to the palpable contempt of the Custom House.

What would Gandon make of that ?

DOCARCH

RITwing wrote: »

We see things very differently.

I agree with your general sentiments (except those making out that architects have the horns of the devil - you have your own agenda on that front)...I wholly differ with your opinion on how change should be achieved.

Just bear in mind that if architects refuse to implement SI9, in reality, the DoECLG probably couldn't give (much of) a toss! There are other professions rubbing their hands and waiting to step into the void that might leave.

sydthebeat

Seeing as there more surveyors providing the service than engineers (bregs survey) and there are only low hundreds registered. .... then it's obvious that the profession with the vastly overwhelming arc of power in this "service" is architects.

This is also the profession that leads the vast majority of public projects, so if a decision was taken en masse to non participate in order to seek revocation the government would have to listen, similar to the teachers striking etc.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

This is also the profession that leads the vast majority of public projects, so if a decision was taken en masse to non participate in order to seek revocation the government would have to listen, similar to the teachers striking etc.

Yes, but other professions are 'knocking on the door', e.g. of the Dept of Education, to say they would be more than happy to take the lead!

RITwing

So let them. Then architects could dodge the awful liabilities imposed by SI 9 but more vitally take to the airwaves with some moral authority and leadership to point out to all the unknowing that the state has moved to protect itself from it's citizens - why don't architects scream this loudly? Because they are cowards , dining with devil seeking the crumbs.

all deserve to know that

1. if they or their children buy a home in Ireland the govt has moved to distance the state from them if that home is later found to be defective. SI 9 can be re branded the Pyrite/Priory Hall charter for it makes provisions for that to happen again - only next time easier for the state not to assist .

2. modest extension works will cost more for no tangible benefits

3. self building is finished

Forget how badly architects are served by SI 9.

Show leadership.

Show how society is badly served.

RORY O CONNOR

Self building is not finished.

From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.

Gumbo

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Self building is not finished.

From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.

Whose name goes in the builders area of the commencement notice?
Who gives the builders undertaken certificate?
Will an assigned Certifier sign off on joe blogs as a builder?

sydthebeat

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Self building is not finished.

From 2016 a builder will be obliged to show his competency to undertake works. However if he/she can demonstrate that all of the contractors engaged in the construction of the works are competent then the self builder may be deemed to be competent.

and apart from a CIRI number, how does said "self builder" demonstrate competency? how much evidence of previous projects have to be provided?

should the 'self builder' be a complete novice to project management.... whos name goes in the area for"building contractor"?

Hairy mellon

read:
http://www.iaosb.com/building_control_(amendment)_regulation_s.i.9_of_2014_has_failed_self_builders_of_ireland.html

Letter to Minister Alan Kelly from Iaosb on 15th of September 2014

Dear Minister Kelly,

I am writing to you regarding Building Control (Amendment) Regulations: S.I.9 of 2014 which came to effect on 1st of March 2014.

This new regulation was the answer by then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan T.D., to ensure properties are safe and compliant with Building Regulations. According to Mr. Hogan, this Amendment would stop situations like Priory Hall and Pyrite problems and give extra protection to home owners against bad workmanship by Building Contractors. The idea sounded great but like all his other policies it has done nothing but make life more difficult for the people of Ireland.

Self-building has been a major sector of all the house’s built in our country in the past decade and I am sorry to tell you that since the commencement of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I.9 it has denied many of us the centuries old Irish tradition of building a house for ourselves and our families.

Under the rules of S.I 9, self-builders will have to employ a certified professional (Architect, Engineer, Building Surveyor) to design the house for them and then an Assigned Certifier to sign off each section of the build to confirm that it has been built according to the Regulations. Perfect, a supervised build under the eyes of the professionals. However, like other thousands of self builders in Ireland we would be grateful if you could let us know the contact details and locations of these Certifiers as they are almost non-existent. From the feedback that we have been receiving, as soon as your so called Design and Assigned Certifiers hear the word “Self-Build” the conversation ends as none of them are prepared to endanger their business by signing off the certifications needed for the build in case something goes wrong. Before the commencement day of S.I.9, the RIAI President, representing the Architects of Ireland, protested to Minister Hogan and raised concern about the possible consequences this amendment might bring but this was ignored by the Minister.

According to Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Building Control (Amendment) Regulation: S.I.9 of 2014 was needed to give protection to self-builders should something go wrong. However, by not having any professional committed to the build, all that S.I.9 has done is to make it a lot more difficult for them to build and make the dream of owning their own house a thing of the past. What S.I.9 has done is like giving a man a brand new car with all the extra safety features designed for the protection of the family but then ruining it by putting a clamp on all four wheels. There is no point having this car if it does not go anywhere.

Self-builders of Ireland have been let down by your department and this government. Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I 9 of 2014 is a joke and not even a funny one. It needs to be revoked or revised otherwise the option of Self-Building will be gone for many families in Ireland.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I.9 of 2014 has failed and you need to take action now.

I would be grateful to you if you do not reply with false promises and politically correct answers like the ones we have had in the past two years from Mr Hogan.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


Kind regards,


Shane McCloud
Irish Association of Self Builder
www.iaosb.com

Hairy mellon

and more recent submission by IAOSB to DECLG

https://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/iaosb-submission-to-declg/comment-page-1/

RORY O CONNOR

sydthebeat wrote: »

and apart from a CIRI number, how does said "self builder" demonstrate competency? how much evidence of previous projects have to be provided?

should the 'self builder' be a complete novice to project management.... whos name goes in the area for"building contractor"?

The self builder demonstrates competency by demonstrating the competency of tradesmen doing the work. I am really sorry I even bothered to post my last remarks. There is such a fear about of the new BCA that everyone seems to have lost the plot and is running scared.

In my experience most self builders have a pretty good idea about what to do to get the job done and in many cases do a far better job of it than many so called professional builders.

Hairy mellon

Imo the issue isn't competencies of either builder or self-builder (my experience is self-builders are well able also)- There appear to be two issues. The code of practice does not mentions self-builders but does note what a competent builder is deemed to be. It indicates that the builder should have three years similar building experience. This, along with Law Society advice, is why self-builds appear to have difficulty getting certifiers.

Also there is uncertainty in the poorly worded regulation and in the completion certificate (director of building company etc)- even if you are well able to construct a compliant house etc. there is a risk of invalidation at completion stage.

Just look at the whole 40sqm exemption fiasco at present: there are plenty of small projects that are underway or completed that have valid short form commencement notices (exempt from BCAR due to less than 40sqm. Now, it would appear from BCMS advice, they are subject to SI.9. Recent advice from BCMS and reiterated by the RIAI make the 40sqm threshold less clear-cut, and they are saying the figure is cumulative (like planning exempted development). If you have a 39SSqm extension completed previously and you want to add on a 3Sqm porch, you fall under SI.9. and need the full shooting match.

This means that BCMS and DECLG interpretation of SI9 has 'evolved', and some completed (and under construction) project will now be deemed to be invalid. Letters of exemption (as required by Law Society) may not be issued on these projects, and there is no method of retrospective compliance in SI.9.

This looks like the department is "making this up as they go along"- it is no wonder self-builders are reluctant to commence.

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Recent advice from BCMS and reiterated by the RIAI make the 40sqm threshold less clear-cut, and they are saying the figure is cumulative (like planning exempted development).

Just to point out that, yes, the BCMS did say that...but the RIAI are querying that at present. The RIAI did pass on the information (i.e. what the BCMS said) if that's what you mean by 'reiterate'.

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

Because...there are a group preparing a very detailed and workable proposal for revisions to SI9. I know who is in that group and many were/are definitely anti-SI9. These proposals will not be finalised until early in the New Year. A review of SI9 has been scheduled for the New Year. If the motion was carried to seek an early review of SI9 - and the early review was somehow facilitated by the DoECLG - the proposals may not be finalised in time for review...pointless, in my opinion, to vote to have a review brought back a couple of weeks and not have a proposal.

In my view better to go with a solution than simply be hostile...politicians and civil servants are far more open to solutions (to save face).

I agree about bringing a solution, but if this group is beavering away on its own, it too is a self interest group. ...

Hairy mellon

they passed it on and made an even more onerous interpretation- demolition would not be taken into account

Hairy mellon

here is post:
https://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/riai-practice-news-40sqm-bcar-si-9-exemption/

Imo advice from BCMS and Department has been incorrect previously. Stakeholders (ACEI/ RIAI/ SCSI) should be getting expert legal advice not asking Department for another interpretation.

Remember they originally stated exemption was 40Sqm OR 400Sq Ft

I believe Kevin Sheridan is another stakeholder who said the BCMS interpretation (cumulative) was the one intended at the CIOB this week.

galwaytt

...and it continues: a potential client in Mayo got a quote for the DC/AC under SI9 for his new build. 223m2, 2-storey w/sunroom to rear. Price for BCMS work quoted was €15,500, ex-VAT, giving a total of €19,065.00 inc VAT.

That does not include structural design work to superstructure, either (which we have in our package to him), but it does include structural design for foundations etc.

...'tis a long way from Phil's "€1000-1500" per house, eh ??

Hairy mellon

tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

€2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

Drift

Hairy mellon wrote: »

tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

€2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

WOW .... I don't even know where to start!!!

BryanF

Hairy mellon wrote: »

tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

€2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

this week I see that J Little repeated calls for the homebond book to be 'withdrawn and extensively revised'.

I plan on going to an info day next week (for free) with homebond in Cork, ill report back.. wonder if anyone will raise: http://www.thejournal.ie/homebond-snub-over-pyrite-a-matter-of-serious-public-concern-committee-329297-Jan2012/

Hairy mellon

I dont think anyone has seen fine print in new defects policy...I wonder will pyrite be covered?

Strolling Bones

I think it was our friends in the Law Society who around about 2000 warned that HB were charging too little per house to build up a significant reserve of cash to cope with a significant series of defects. They were right.

And it appears here we are again.

Hairy mellon

so, sighs of relief all round, back to status quo...

what was that Beckett quote again?

Strolling Bones

Hairy mellon wrote: »

what was that Beckett quote again?

I paraphrase. Those who fail will continue to get better at it.

DOCARCH

Hairy mellon wrote: »

tht client would do well to contact homebond- they appear to be doing a pilot scheme for SI.9

€2K all-in including foundation design, assigned certifier role and a defects liability insurance....

No mention from Homebond re Design Certifier? Who is to carry out that role and at what cost?

I also believe that for your E2K they will do 5 or 6 visits. Is this sufficient?

What Homebond offer is not defects liability insurance, it is just their standard Homebond cover (same as before)...which would appear does not cover much!

Hairy mellon

I am sure for an extra €100 or €200 they would do design certifier role

not sure how many inspections but BCMS suggested inspection plan recently (Engineers Journal) was 7 so if homebond plan 7 then they are right on the money

Defects scheme i dont know details but its different to previous (apparently)

One thing it will do- put a market rate on assigned certifier for housing at below €2000 (as per Hogan and DECLG initial guide)

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

I am sure for an extra €100 or €200 they would do design certifier role

not sure how many inspections but BCMS suggested inspection plan recently (Engineers Journal) was 7 so if homebond plan 7 then they are right on the money

Defects scheme i dont know details but its different to previous (apparently)

One thing it will do- put a market rate on assigned certifier for housing at below €2000 (as per Hogan and DECLG initial guide)

LOL

for an extra €200 they would produce a full set of building regulation complaint drawings????

i really hope they do, theyd be out of business the next day!!!

Hairy mellon

LOL

€2k includes €250 foundation design, AC role and Defects Insurance. AC cost has to be below €1000...

so much for the fees bonanza for professionals...

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

LOL

€2k includes €250 foundation design, AC role and Defects Insurance. AC cost has to be below €1000...

so much for the fees bonanza for professionals...

if they will take on the liability for those costs, let them have it all

but we already know their track record when it comes to honouring their insurance guarantees