BRegs Blog

A blog to debate the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations (BCAR): The BRegs Blog presents an opportunity for free expression of opinion on BCAR and their implementation. The blog is not representative of any professional body or organisation. Each post represents the personal opinion of that contributor and does not purport to represent the views of all contributors.

How do we fix BC(A)R SI.9?

by bregs blog admin team

156211885-1 Is a continuation of our current defective system of self-regulation at increased cost the best the industry and government can do? An costly “blizzard of red tape?” We need to examine possible solutions.

Past president and current council member of the representative body for architects (RIAI) Eoin O’Cofaigh posted a thought provoking review of where are now under the new Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014). In “Eoin O’Cofaigh- two weeks gone; BC(A)R SI.9” the author outlined the winners and loosers and concluded “The regulations do nothing to prevent another Priory Hall or pyrites disaster. They will not prevent a future Minister having to again dig into the public pocket to underwrite the next round of repairs to distressed homeowners’ dwellings. They are a huge missed opportunity, from a Government who knew the proper solution and who ignored it.”

Deirder NÍ Fhlionn’s excellent legal perspective “Will BC(A)R SI.9 bring any benefit to consumers?“noted “There are no new legal rights or remedies for consumers created by BCAR 2014. Rather, the benefits to consumers are intended to result from improvements in the building process, such as the requirement for an assigned certifier to devise and implement an inspection plan.”

The question is “How do we fix BC(A)R SI.9?” We suggest the following suite of posts describe in detail a practical and low-cost, appropriate and independent 100% inspection regime for the construction industry.

A joint paper on a solution to SI.9 by two past presidents of the RIAI, Michael Collins and Eoin O’Cofaigh was posted this week: “A BETTER way: solutions to BC(A)R SI.9“. In this carefully considered piece the precedent of the UK system of Approved Inspectors was examined as a useful template for a fully-resourced, local-authority controlled independent inspection system. The advantages of an approved inspector system are:

  • The cost to the State is minimal. The system is better for the State: It will deliver better design and construction, not just better paperwork. It gives the State an additional layer of protection.
  • Peer review of system will drive better design standards.
  • The benefit for a contractor is to have the experienced Approved Inspector arrive on site with local authority backing.
  • The person who buys or rents a new home gets independent third-party audit by experienced professionals, answerable to the local authority.
  • The system will include experienced technologists whose livelihoods are undermined by S.I. 9.
  • It allows self-building and does not affect Foreign Direct Investment.
  • The system requires no change to construction contracts.
  • The system is better for the consumer as per the submission of the National Consumer Authority. It will drive higher standards

The paper concluded “A system as outlined above can be set up quickly. It involves no major change in existing contractual and legal structures. It needs no primary legislation: the Building Control Act already provides for the designation of such persons to act in this capacity…Such a system will have the support of the consumer organisations and the public.”

The cost and resources required to establish a fully-functional independent regulatory system were examined in “The cost of solution: BC(A)R SI.9“. We quantified the number of inspectors required to cater for our current construction industry output. The cost of these inspectors could be self-financing, at no additional cost to the taxpayer. We noted a minimum number of only 200 additional experienced inspectors were required to provide 100% independent inspections nationwide based on UK construction output figures.

The piece noted “…The system would be self-funding, transparent and effective. 100% independent building control inspections throughout the country, real consumer protection. There would be plenty of well-qualified applicants for these roles and a separate simple register could be set up to monitor 200 professional inspectors…No millions of euros in consultants fees needed to work out the feasibility or costs…Even being conservative and over-staffing by double all local authorities to bed-down the new regulation system, we would need 400 new inspectors, a fraction of the resources allocated to Irish Water.”

In post comments, contributors remarked on an earlier opinion piece that indicated the likely consumer cost of a similar inspection system based on UK costs. In “Another way forward: the cost of independent local authority building control inspections” we note “A target of 100% Building Control Authority (BCA) inspections should be in place at the commencement of any new certification process. Now is the time to get a proper system up and running when construction output is depressed. BCA inspections and fees could be a valuable source of income for local authorities given loss of income from the impending roll-out of Irish Water in January 2014…The Department has stated a mid-range additional cost per dwelling of €2000 for S.I.80 (RIA 2012). Why continue a defective system of self-certification at an increased cost when properly resourced independent building control inspections could cost as little as €375 for the same dwelling…?”

Commentators and stakeholders believe the part-deferral SI.105, introduced less than one week after SI.9 for hospitals and schools, is the start of the unravelling of this new regulation. This may be followed by more part-deferrals and exemptions of other building types. As the calls get louder for an immediate transition period to be introduced and SI.9 to be suspended, we hope this outline of a simple, more cost-effective and appropriate system will be examined in more detail by stakeholders, representative groups and government.

We have received a lot of emails on this and hope it will stimulate debate. We do consider the above system is very thought provoking and would appear to be a viable, rapid solution to the unweildy and ill-conceived BC(A)R SI.9.

Amanda Gallagher, Self Builder: Opinion Piece BC(A)R SI.9

by Bregs Blog admin team

PPF-Hogan & Taoiseach


Reading comments via the National Newspapers on the recent Fine Gael Ard Fheis inspired me to jot down some comments of my own.  An Taoiseach Enda Kenny was asked who inspired him in life – he answered the great Muhammad Ali – apparently Mr Kenny loved his use of ‘verbal gymnastics’ – phrases like “It isn’t the mountain ahead to climb that wears you out it; it’s the pebble in your shoe!” I also heard Mr Kenny reassured the crowd that Self Build / Direct Labour is still possible in Ireland.

Minister Phil Hogan also made comments at the Ard Fheis regarding Mr McFeely of Priory Hall fame – apparently Minister Hogan found Mr. McFeely’s BBC Interview “an outrageous waste of free speech” and also that “Fine Gael stand for the people of Priory Hall“.  On hearing these comments I was bemused to say the least.  The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 – known as SI9 which Minister Hogan implemented on Saturday, March 1st, 2014 in NO way stand for the people of Priory Hall, in fact these regulations mean that the likes of Priory Hall could happen time and time again.

The SI9 still allows self-certification – this is a grave injustice to the victims of Priory Hall. Developers and Building Contractors will still be able to walk away from shoddy workmanship and leave the ordinary folk abandoned.

The Minister and the CIF continue to use the ‘cloak’ of Consumer Safety when talking of these regulations.  If only the general public would take a little while to research the SI9, just like we had to, all would become clear to them. Some good resources are available on google – and bregs blog to name a few. I understand many people think the SI9 doesn’t concern them – but I feel they concern our whole society, for example, 1,800 families this year alone have abandoned their self build projects – their dream of owning their home – many will apply now for Local Authority Housing as they had a tiny budget to build with and will never be able to purchase a home. The Minister has created a major future housing crisis with the implementation of the SI9. The Farming Community will be especially affected as most farm buildings are self build and one off self build homes are what make up the rural countryside. Architectural Technicians, draughts-men and many fine architects have been left with no prospect of employment with these regulations.

We, as self builders, find the Ministers reassurances that self build can continue as before under these regulations an ‘outrageous waste of free speech‘ – we cannot fathom why the Minister cannot just come out and make a statement to the Citizens of this country informing them that self build cannot continue under SI9 – in fact the words ‘self build / direct labour’ do not appear once in the entire SI9 or code of practice for Building Control.  If the Minister does not want to do this then we feel he has no choice but to amend the wording on the legal certificates in the SI9 to accommodate self builders.  They really are his only two options.  You know, self builders too are fond of ‘verbal gymnastics’ – ‘It isn’t the mountain of the build ahead that’s wearing us out; it’s the pebble in our shoes‘ – and that pebble is the SI9 – and we are going to remove that pebble and throw it in to the widest, deepest lake in Ireland!

The above opinion piece was submitted on 22nd March 2014 by Amanda Gallagher