Architectural Technologists’ Dáil Questions
by Bregs Blog admin team
Architectural Technologists’ Dáil Questions for debate
Recently we asked architectural technologists to get involved and submit questions, on the invitation of Mick Wallace TD, to a debate in Dáil scheduled for 27th may 2014. These are the comments we received this week from the Blog and from talking to Architectural Technologists: please feel free to copy, paste and send to Dáil TD’s or use as basis for your own submission. We would be interested in adding to this list for anyone who has already made submissions. Contact details are below:
Mick Wallace, Dáil Eireann, Leinster House,, Kildare Street,, Dublin 2;
Tel: 01 6183287, +353 (0)1 6183287
Bullet Points for Consideration – Mick Wallace TD Questions
- I am an experienced architectural technologist working in an architectural practice. I am the expert technical professional in my office, both in terms of preparation of design packages, and coordination of other consultants work such as structural, civil and mech / elec. I am also the person who usually carries out compliance checks on site. The office therefore depends on me for all matters relating to Building Regulations. I will essentially still be preparing Building Regulations compliant design solutions for all of our projects, and ensuring that these meet the specifications outlined in the original packages, but then presenting the Certificates to my employer for signing. Considering my experience and my duties, how can I be excluded from the provisions of SI9 ?
- I am a self employed architectural technologist, operating independently for over 10 years. The Minister says these regulations will stop people ‘passing themselves off as professionals’, but I am now told that I must formally declare myself to be a Building Surveyor or an Architect in order to continue in practice, and that I must be assessed on that basis. I am deeply uncomfortable with this situation, given that I am not qualified in either profession. In addition, neither Registration Body feels that my portfolio quite fits the requirements for their Registration criteria. There is no facility for me to fill any gaps identified in my knowledge or experience, and I am facing closure of my practice without registration. I am in my late forties with a family and can’t afford to return to education. What should I do to overcome these issues.
- I am a qualified architectural technologist , and a member of two professional organisations, CIAT and RIAI. Both demand that I carry out Continuing Professional Development yearly to maintain my skills. One specifies Regulation and Professionalism among my core competences, while the other demands that I adhere to a strict Code of Conduct and maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance, and this is rigorously enforced. Both memberships focus on the technical and regulatory side of architecture and construction, and my CPD is targeted accordingly.Why is none of this recognised under the legislation ?
- I am an architectural technologist with a career spanning 25 years on a wide variety of construction projects. In excluding me from the primary certifier roles, these regulations now imply that a graduate in one of the regulated professions with the minimum post grad experience needed to get through the required professional registration is now more competent in Building Regulations than I am, despite my training and hands-on experience. Could the Minister explain to me how this is possible or realistic, or how it serves to ensure better building standards ? Does my experience count for nothing ?
- As an experienced architectural technologist, I provide specialist design services to architects, engineers and building surveyors in terms of tender and working drawing packages, and also provide follow up site inspection services. I regularly prepare Fire Cert, Disability Access Certificate and Part L compliance packages for projects, often providing all three for the same building. I will now be required to provide Ancillary Certification to others for this technical design, despite the fact that I am often entirely responsible for Building Regulations compliance on such projects.How many Ancillary Certificates like this does it take before the main certificate is deemed worthless? How does this system protect the consumer, essentially adding an additional tier into the process in terms of redress in the case of a problem ?
- I am a lecturer in architectural technology in one of the third level Institutes of Technology. I have 30 students finishing third year exams next week. Many of them are well capable of progressing to Honours Degree Level, but I feel that they should be aware of the limitations of such a choice at this stage. The regulatory environment has now changed completely since they enrolled on their courses. What should I advise them to do ? Should I advise them to progress in architectural technology or transfer to one of the already recognised construction professions ?
- I am a second year architectural technology student, just finished my exams which I think went well. I had intended progressing to third year, and perhaps onto 4th year, but I’m not sure now on the basis of what I’m hearing about Building Regulations, and how I won’t be recognised as competent when I graduate. Should I jump ship to architecture now ?
- I am a graduate architectural technologist with 3 years experience. Work was in short supply when I graduated, so I and many of my class mates emigrated. It was always my intention to return, and I hear that the economy is beginning to grow once more back home. However, I’m told that new regulations recently adopted take no account of my qualification or technically focused skillset. I’m working as a technologist in the country I emigrated to, but there is a defined progression route here to professional level, whereby my skills are recognised. Should I stay away, and complete that route ? If I return home will I be funded to return to education ?
- The titles ‘architectural technologist’ and ‘architectural technician’ are among a small group of proscribed titles under Part 3 of the Building Control Act. CIAT has lobbied vigorously for the inclusion of its Chartered Members under the new legislation. The RIAI has recently published new policy on architectural technologists supporting the need for a Statutory Register. Architectural Technologists lobbied vigorously during the public consultation around these regulations. You yourself Minister have spoken extensively on the topic while you were in opposition, and most recently have referred to architects, engineers and building surveyors being the construction professionals ‘most commonly’ involved in construction projects, suggesting that there are also others involved. All of these facts allude to the existence of architectural technologists in the construction industry and the issues faced by them in light of the adoption of SI9, and yet we remain excluded. How can you limit those ordained under this legislation to just three professions when you are aware that there are more involved than that. More importantly Minister, why do you continue to ignore the issues presented to you on this matter ?
Other posts of interest:
Dáil Debate 27th May on Architectural Technologists: help needed! – click link here
An Architectural Technologist’s 6 questions to employer – click link here
Architectural Technologists and BC(A)R SI.9: CIAT – click link here
Architectural Technologist: Minister “disrespectful and misleading” in Seanad – click link Blog
Eoin O Cofaigh: The architectural technologist and BC(A)R SI.9 – click link here
Opinion piece: Architectural Technologists and the register: BC(A)R SI.9 – click link here
Practical Post 8: Employees won’t certify? BC(A)R SI.9 – click link here