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.

Month: November, 2014

S.I.9 CPD | Questions for Assigned Certifier

by Bregs Blog admin team


By BRegs Blog Admin Team | 4th November 2014

Questions for Assigned Certifier CPD

Further to yesterday’s post and given the recent industry spate of CPD on certifier roles under the new building regulations, we assembled from contributors the following list of 20 practical questions for attendees to ask at upcoming events. We would appreciate hearing any answers that you may receive so that we may share them.

1. Is there any update on the liability and insurance implications for employees signing certificates?

2. When an Assigned Certifier uploads a Design Certificate to the Building Control Management System (BCMS) during construction, whose Professional Indemnity Insurance covers the change i.e. the Design or Assigned Certifier?

3. If the builder puts forward design changes (value engineering) and the architect accepts it can the Assigned Certifier over-rule them and refuse to sign off?

4. If an Ancillary Certifier defaults on his contract how does the Assigned Certifier complete the Inspection Plan?

5. Are Collateral Agreements needed for all Ancillary Certifiers who have design responsibility?

6. What do you tell a client if you cannot get sub-contractors who have Professional Indemnity Insurance?

7. What level of Professional Indemnity cover does an Ancillary Certifier need?

8. If you are a nominated sub-contractor doing, say a window installation, do you have to give an ancillary design certificate for the Commencement Notice, an ancillary certificate for the design inspections and another ancillary certificate for the builder?

9. At what stage does the Assigned Certifier need to be appointed?

10. Can a delay in BCMS be used to give an Extension of Time?

11. How should I handle Liquidated & Ascertained Damages to cover a delay in validating  the Completion Certificate?

12. When will BCMS be ready to take Certificate of Compliance on Completion  documents?

13. If I am an Assigned Certifier and I realise that the Designer (Design Certifier) has certified on something that is not in compliance, what do I do?

14 What is the advice for tying in domestic sub-contractors who will have to produce Ancillary Certificates?

15. Have the stakeholders produced a standard agreed letter or opinion of exemption for small works that are exempt from BC(A)R SI.9 (as requested by Law Society)?

16. For projects commenced under the original interpretation of the 40 sq.m. exemption (non-cumulative) now underway or complete with a validated commencement notice, what is the situation regarding non-compliance particularly given recent BCMS/RIAI advice on cumulative extensions? Works now will be deemed not to be exempt from BC(A)R SI.9.

17. How are Assigned and Design Certifiers to deal with fRsi compliance requirements under Part L?

18. Should the Design Certifier be a separate appointment to the Assigned Certifier and/or Employer’s Representative?

19. Has advice been obtained from the Department of the Environment on the recently published BCMS advice on S.I.9 qualifying floor areas being assessed cumulatively with regard to multiple building extensions?

20 Has advice been sought from the Department of the Environment on the recently published RIAI advice on S.I.9 qualifying floor areas being assessed to include the area of any demolished buildings?

Answers to:

Other posts of interest:

S.I.9 CPD | The Costs + Conflicts

“The Assigned Certifier is the one in the lion’s den” Rory O’Donnell, solicitor

Commencement notice problems | Does size matter?

Design Certifier | RIAI advise separate appointment

Results | S.I. 9 Assigned Certifier Survey

Legal Alert | Commencement Notices since 1st March 2014

Part L compliance – Who wants a building control service provided by cowboys?

Upcoming CPD for BC(A)R SI.9

RIAI CPD July 2014: Design Certifier in the Design Process- SI.9

Engineers Ireland CPD 10th June

S.I. 9 | We have found the Gaps!

by Bregs Blog admin team


The BRegs Blog has received many submissions in response to the alleged divisions among professionals in relation to S.I.9. Some of these have been published already with clear and cogent analysis as to how little difference of opinion there actually is on how bad this legislation is for those trying to build in this country.

Interestingly this piece acknowledges that there are at least half a dozen divisions but not the ones that some would have you believe!

S.I. 9 | We have found the Gaps!

Is there a real divide on S.I. 9 among construction professionals or do the gaps lay elsewhere? If it is the latter, as most commentators seem to think, then why is a message of division within the professions being promoted by some?  Some believe that it is the classic tactic of trying to divide and rule by vested interests who seek to mask how they will benefit under these new Building Regulations. These vary from the officials at the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (DECLG) who simply want to solve a problem for their Minister, at no cost to the public purse, through to some of the stakeholder groups who stand to earn millions of Euro from operating S.I. 9 related mandatory registers.

At best S.I. 9 is a yellow-pack sticky plaster stop-gap solution to cover over the serious cracks in Building Control in Ireland. Some of these cracks, divides or invisible gaps include:

Gap 1 | Increased consumer costs for no benefit

The biggest gap around S.I.9 appears to be between what building owners need and what they are actually getting from this legislation. This law is increasing building costs for the consumer without delivering better building or real value for money. This is the biggest flaw with S.I.9 and the one that should unite opposition to the legislation and calls for it to be altered or revoked.

Gap 2 | Lack of public information campaign

This is the information deficit between professionals and the public. Where is the information campaign that the DECLG indicated they would put in place to inform building owners of the advantages or their obligations in relation to S.I. 9? Have you seen anything about BC(A)R on a billboard or side of a bus lately? This invisibility is in stark contrast to the introduction of  legislation by the Health and Safety Authority.

Gap 3 | Communications between stakeholder groups and members

This is the gap between the BC(A)R negotiating teams of the various stakeholder groups (ACEI, RIAI, CIF, SCSI and EI) and their members who have to implement the legislation. The cheerleaders of BC(A)R, from the professional consultation groups, have gone very quiet of late in the face of massive opposition to the legislation from practitioners. The BC(A)R negotiations took place during 2013 in secrecy. The DECLG confirmed that the stakeholder groups were not bound by any confidentiality agreement and that the DECLG had merely advised discretion be used in disseminating information on progress with the legislation. Not one stakeholder group called an EGM to put the acceptance of S.I.9 to a vote. Why this gap in communication between the stakeholder professional groups and their members?

Gap 4 | Groups excluded from SI.9 consultation process

This is the gap in how S.I. 9 should have been drafted and how it was. It exists between the five official stakeholder negotiators (RIAI, ACEI, EI, SCSI and CIF) who were formally part of the consultation process and those professional bodies and semi-state / government bodies who were left out of the negotiations such as the Law Society and the Competition Authority. How this oversight will be resolved remains to be seen.

Gap 5 | Official channels and social media

This is the gap between what the various stakeholder groups are saying to their members about BC(A)R in their various official publications and what their members are saying among themselves through Social Media. The BRegs Blog is one example of this chasm. Professionals should not be relying for information on BC(A)R S.I.9 from “anonymous” social-media sources!

Gap 6 | Registered professional approaches to SI.9

This is the engineer/architect / surveyor gap in the approach to S.I. 9. Large engineering consultancies are mainly ignoring S.I. 9 except where they can pick up substantial fees for lower liability Design or Ancillary Certifier roles. Large architectural practices are struggling with the ramifications of S.I. 9 as they are being pressurised to take on the much more onerous roles, for them, of Design and Assigned Certifier. Building surveyors are jubilant that they were included in the legislation and are mainly keeping their heads down in case anyone notices. Small design firms, whether engineering, surveying or architectural, have no option but to take on the risks of acting as Design and Assigned Certifiers or face starvation.

Other posts of interest:

How much would 100% independent inspections by Local Authorities cost?

€ 5 billion | The extraordinary cost of S.I.9 self-certification by 2020

Engineers Ireland Journal | Eoin O’Cofaigh FRIAI Ancillary Certificates + Self-certification

SCSI | “Highly unlikely Priory Hall would happen in Britain”- Look Back 4

“Size isn’t important” | Are shoe box apartments really the solution?

A Profession Divided | Reflections on an RIAI EGM

‘All Ireland’ | BC(A)R Boycott

Opinion: “the architectural profession is largely united in opposition to S.I.9″

SI.9 Is Defective | RIAI EGM Consensus 

No more snag lists | with S.I. 9

by Bregs Blog admin team


03 November 2014 | Registered Architect’s Opinion

Certificate of Compliance on Completion issues

In a recent blog post we quoted Rory O’Donnell, solicitor and advisor to the Law Society, who said that “the Assigned Certifier is the one on the Lion’s Den”. He seems to have been referring to liability for building defects if there is a claim after a building is completed.

Mr. O’Donnell may be wrong. Not because a claim will not  happen, it might and the Assigned Certifier might or might not be the last man standing if there is a judgment. He is wrong because the lion’s den is Practical Completion. The Assigned Certifier will take his courage in his hands and walk in there on every single job.

Under the new Building Control (Amendment) Regulations commercial contracts and statutory requirements have been forced together into the same process. Practical Completion is no longer certified by the architect; it is now a complex dancing maneouvre between Certifiers and contractors that will be ultimately decided by the Local Authority. Nothing is done until everything is done and there can be no Snag List under S.I. 9 legislation. The entire process is only as strong as the weakest link and if that is  the widget supplier from Slovakia who has not been paid and will not sign his ancillary certificate or hand over his inspection plan,  it will all grind to a halt. The builder cannot leave the site and will not be paid until the works are on the Building Register. This is now the new ‘Practical Completion’. The widget supplier can sit on his hands and the Assigned Certifier has to face down the pack.

What if the Ancillary Certifiers will not provide Ancillary Certificates and Inspection Plans until they get paid? The Assigned Certifier can either proceed without the Ancillary Cerificate (taking the risk on his own insurance policy or delay completion, leaving everyone waiting to be paid, the builder racking up costs and his client with no building.

Getting a completed building over the line with so much paperwork to control and contractual claims racking up for every day’s delay is when you will be standing in the lion’s den.

Other posts of interest:

“The Assigned Certifier is the one in the lion’s den” Rory O’Donnell, solicitor

5 Tips for Completion Certs

Build in 8 hours, wait 3 weeks for a Completion Cert!

Practical Post 19: Phased completion & BC(A)R SI.9

Post 4: Ancillary Certs Design – commencement & completion (by others)

Post 1: Architect’s Ancillary Cert (Design & Completion)

Press: RIAI fearful Local Authorities will start “finding something to invalidate as a method of workload control”

Practical Post 2: completion- FAO Vintners & Retailers

Are Local Authorities ready? Industry concern for completion stage: BC(A)R SI.9 of 2014

S.I.9 – Where are we now? 27 October 2014 

S.I.9 CPD | The Costs + Conflicts

by Bregs Blog admin team

one eyed king

The introduction of new Building Control regulation, S.I.9, earlier this year seems to have spawned an entire industry associated with the provision of S.I. 9 related Continuing Professional Development (CPD) seminars and training. This is being provided by many of the stakeholders associated with negotiating the regulations with the Department of the Environment including the CIF, EI, RIAI and SCSI. Several private operators, including HomeBond and CMG Events have also moved in to capitalise on the fears and lack of industry readiness of those whose livelihoods depend on having to implement the regulations.  The month of November alone sees a rash of S.I.9 CPD in Cork, Dublin, DunLaoghaire, Galway, Liffey Valley, Limerick and Navan.

The provision of CPD is worth hundreds of thousands of Euro to the professional bodies providing it and a valuable revenue stream to those organisations. While there is widespread divergence of opinion among the relevant professionals as to the interpretation of the regulations, from the BCMS to Senior Counsels, the value of some of this CPD must be questionable. There has been a great deal of confusion around the definition of development exempt from S.I.9. Who is correct at this stage and who is accountable if the information being provided is wrong? Remember there is no corrective procedure associated with S.I. 9 if any Building Owner or Assigned Certifier makes a genuine error. Many stakeholder spokespersons argue that they have to provide something to their members and “that something is better than nothing”. The BRegs Blog Admin. does not agree with that contention and feel that if CPD providers are charging for their presentations than the paying attendees deserve the highest standards.

In the current information deficit in the construction industry about Building Control there is a real fear of a ‘king-making’ scenario developing where the one eyed man is stepping in to lead the blind.

Legitimate questions should be asked of any CPD provider in order to ascertain standards of quality, improve performance and provide credibility and these might include:

  1. Was the speaker involved in negotiating S.I.9?
  2. Does the speaker have any vested interest in its continuance or any potential conflict of interest?
  3. Is the speaker being paid for their presentation or a ‘volunteer’ receiving payment in lieu e.g. offers of other paid speaking engagements or were paid for previous speaking engagements?
  4. What qualifications, experience, training or CPD has the speaker undertaken in S.I. 9 or the subject on which they are speaking?
  5. What peer review or evaluation of the speaker’s presentations took place in advance of the presentation and what competences did those undertaking the review have of the subject?
  6. What liability does the speaker or the organisation providing the CPD have if the advice being provided proves to be incorrect?

Note: the BRegs Blog is an entirely free resource based on the concept of open source sharing of information and probably the format most suited to the dissemination of information on S.I. 9 in its current state of flux.

Note: Engineers Ireland put out a request for questions to be submitted in advance of their forthcoming CPD this week which the BRegs Blog requested readers to submit to us also. Soon the BRegs Blog hopes to post a series of questions received that we would like assistance in answering too. Perhaps if you are attending any CPD you may be able to seek answers on our behalf.

Other posts of interest:

“The Assigned Certifier is the one in the lion’s den” Rory O’Donnell, solicitor

Commencement notice problems | Does size matter?

Design Certifier | RIAI advise separate appointment

Results | S.I. 9 Assigned Certifier Survey

Legal Alert | Commencement Notices since 1st March 2014

Part L compliance – Who wants a building control service provided by cowboys?

Upcoming CPD for BC(A)R SI.9

RIAI CPD July 2014: Design Certifier in the Design Process- SI.9

Engineers Ireland CPD 10th June

RIAI EGM | Tuesday 4th November 2014

by Bregs Blog admin team


 Alexander Hotel, Fenian St., Dublin 2

The RIAI are hosting an EGM at the Alexander Hotel at 6pm on Tuesday 4th November 2014. This is a follow on to an EGM held on 12th August 2014 when a vote on whether to call for S.I. 9 to be revoked was deferred (Resolution 1 below). In the meantime two further resolutions have been added to the ticket for what promises to be another great evening of debate for architects at The Alexander. It will be interesting to see if the appetite for discussion of the Building Control Regulations remains strong, eight months after their introduction, and if the attendance remains at the level of 400-500 architects as attended the previous EGM. The motions are as follows:

Resolution No. 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”.

Proposed by:

Gerald Murphy
Barry Kelly
Seán Carew
Maoilíosa Mel Reynolds
Ciarán Ferrie
Stuart H. Blain
Edward Hedderman
Manfredi Anello
Eric Govin
David McHugh

This is the original motion that was deferred from August  having seemingly being considered so radical and controversial. It mirrors similar calls throughout the year by a series of County Councils, members of the Dail and Seanad and even by a Fine Gael sub-committee on the Environment.

Resolution No. 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”.

Proposed by:
Paul Keogh
James Coady
Martin Donnelly
Sean O’Laoire
David Browne
Arthur Hickey
John Mitchell
James Pike
Liam Tuite
Jack Coughlan
William Gleeson
Ruth McParland
Anne Fletcher

This is one of the two new motions and has four RIAI Past Presidents among its signatories. This is probably the vanilla option and the one least likely ‘to frighten the horses on the street’ or the officials at the Department of the Environment.

Resolution No. 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.

Proposed by:
Deirdre Lennon
Eamon Hedderman
Vivian Cummins
Orla Hegarty
Eoin O Cofaigh
Michael Collins
Caomhan Murphy
Eoin O’Morain
Joan O’Connor
Brendan Gallagher

(Darren Bergin)

This is the second of the two new motions. It is being proposed by nine of the current RIAI Council members of whom two are RIAI Past Presidents. The original resolution was signed by the Architectural Technologist Member of the RIAI Council, Darren Bergin, but his name was not permitted for inclusion as Architectural Technologists are currently not recognised as full members under the RIAI By-Laws.

Previous posts of interest:

Opinion: “the architectural profession is largely united in opposition to S.I.9″

RIAI EGM | Seven Issues to Consider

SI.9 Is Defective | RIAI EGM Consensus 

News Alert | RIAI EGM Report

Top dozen posts | October 2014.

by Bregs Blog admin team


02 November 2014

We received over 21,000 views during October helping us pass the figure of 195,000 views since starting the BRegs Blog almost one year ago. New information on the practical impacts of S.I.9 on the construction industry came to the fore and our readers seem to appreciate our rapid response time to these unfolding developments.

Our top read post was the survey results on the Assigned Certifier. Thanks to the many people who participated in the survey – we re-posted it earlier today. The ‘topic’ of the month in terms of Social Media comment was the confusion around the area of cumulative extensions and the 40 sq.m. exemption from BCAR (still unresolved).  A prescient piece earlier in the month by two Past Presidents of the RIAI, Michael Collins and Eoin O’Cofaigh, on the complexity of our new regulations – the 38 steps for a standard warehouse project – went a long way towards explaining Ireland’s poor performance (128th) in the World Bank ratings for ‘Doing Business’ and cost of Construction permits.

Interestingly several BRegs Blog posts went mainstream with many economic and media commentators sharing them via Twitter. Thanks to David, Constantin, Glenna, Sean, Su, Frank, Karl and Rob for the help in spreading the word.

Don’t forget reading these dozen blog posts qualifies for CPD (unstructured) points! Enjoy!

  1. World Bank Report 2015 | Ireland’s poor construction regulations are the biggest drag on our ranking
  2. Legal Alert | Commencement Notices since 1st March 2014
  3. 3 County Councils ask Minister to Revoke SI.9
  4. Collins & O’Cofaigh | “the 38 steps” and the complexity of our regulations
  5. The Design Certifier Conundrum | Retraction
  6. Part L compliance – Who wants a building control service provided by cowboys?
  7. Design Certifier | RIAI advise separate appointment
  8. Architectural Technologists + Architects | Parity of Esteem?
  9. SI.9 costs for a typical house
  10. Commencement Notices – Update | 22 October 2014
  11. 60 new schools delayed due to SI.9 |
  12. UK and Ireland: Take a quick drive to Newry with BReg Blog…


Results | S.I. 9 Assigned Certifier Survey

by Bregs Blog admin team

In case you missed it heres the most popular post for October

BRegs Blog

Survey logo

The BRegs Blog conducted a survey of its readers between 16th and 20th October 2014 in relation to their level of engagement and experience of undertaking the role of Assigned Certifier  (or not as the case may be) in accordance with S.I. 9. Thanks to all who took part in the survey. Once again we are indebted to the huge number of you who added comments to elaborate on your answers. These will provide very useful guidance to us in determining subjects for future blog posts.

The make-up of our respondents in terms of professional groups seems to accord with the BCMS indicators for those submitting commencement notices. The clear majority of you were architects (60%). The BCMS are currently advising that “there are a number of Building Surveyors registered as Assigned Certifiers on the BCMS system but the percentage is very small compared to Architects and Engineers”. 

View original post 818 more words

Revoke S.I.9 – Fine Gael internal report to Phil Hogan in 2013 (3 of 4)

by Bregs Blog admin team


By Bregs Blog Admin on 31st October 2014

Opposition to S.I.9 does not extend only to to opposition and independent representatives in County Councils, the Dáil, and Seanad. Opposition and calls for revocation of S.I.9 go right to the heart of the Fine Gael party itself.

In early 2013 Senator Cáit Keane, represented Fine Gael on a Working Sub-committee established by the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht to evaluate and make recommendations on the Registration and Training of Architects in Ireland. In a damning report she noted:

Allowing one person to legally be the designer, builder and certifier could be very damaging in terms of protection for consumers….

the draft regulations make it possible for the same person to be the designer, the builder and the self-certifier!”

Ireland is unique in having a self-certification regime for construction. I don’t think self-certification in any sphere is to be recommended.

See post Fine Gael expert group opposed the introduction of new regulations

In our blog post “Fine Gael Report opposed new building regulations- 2013” we noted, on the last page of the report, that Fine Gael members of the expert committee include Minister for State, Paudie Coffey TD, at the Department of the Environment who must now be well briefed on the issues surrounding BC(A)R SI.9 and registration of professionals.

It would appear that both Minister Coffey and Minister Alan Kelly are tasked with the not inconsiderable task of cleaning up the mess of our construction sector left by their predecessor, Phil Hogan. The problems associated with stalled construction starts, increased costs and the complexity of our regulatory system will only get worse as the months progress. It is hard to foresee any improvement in the residential sector for first time buyers, or indeed any improvement for the spiraling homeless problem the country faces in the immediate future.

We wonder have any key stakeholders made formal representations to the new Minister Kelly on the real problems associated with S.I.9 since implementation? In the absence of clear, objective data it must be hard for decision-makers at the top table to get a grip on the complex factors that affect supply and demand, in the residential sector in particular.

Other posts of interest: 

Senators ask Minister to Revoke SI.9 (2 of 4) 

3 County Councils ask Minister to Revoke SI.9

Complaint to Minister re Seanad Debate: BC(A)R SI.9 (SI.105)

Seanad SI.9 (SI.105) Motion Thursday 10th April

Senator Paschal Mooney, Minister Hogan and Seanad debate 

Architectural Technologist: Minister “disrespectful and misleading” in Seanad

Senator Mooney letter to Minister Phil Hogan

Going through the motions at speed –

Press piece: Co Council votes to scrap BC(A)R S.I. 9

Press Piece: Fingal Councillors call to end BC(A)R SI.9 

World Bank Report 2015 | UK v Ireland the real cost of “Dealing with construction permits”

by Bregs Blog admin team

PAGE 9.pdf [Converted]

By BRegs Blog Admin. Team on 1st November 2014

We noted in a previous post that the biggest drag on Ireland’s overall World Bank 2015 ranking for ‘Doing Business’ is our building regulatory system: Dealing with construction permits”. This is clearly demonstrated in the graph above.

Although Ireland’s overall ranking has improved to 13th out of 189 countries*, our position for “Dealing with construction permits” in the  report goes down from 117th to 128th – a drop of  11 places in one year. In this sector the UK is placed 17th this year, well over 100 places ahead of Ireland on these construction indicators.

To compare and assess countries the World Bank looks at a typical 1,300 sq.m. production/warehouse building valued at €1.46 m, and provides a detailed summary of the procedures, time needed and statutory fees to build a warehouse in each of the 189 countries.

In the UK there are 12 procedures to get all statutory permissions and this will take 150 days. The cost is 1.2% or £15,039 (€19,035)  including 100% independent inspections for building control (approved inspector model). See detailed data for UK here (click on title):

Doing Business in United Kingdom – World Bank Group

By contrast, in Ireland the cost of statutory fees is a whopping €138,379. We have 38 procedures that take a minimum of 208 days (if various tasks completed in parallel). These costs exclude our privatised self-certification system of building control. S.I.9 costs will include additional certifier costs, design, assigned and ancillary certification costs, defensive specifications and delays due to inadequate Local Authority resources and staffing. This could add an additional 7% to the costs tabled in the World Bank report, an extra €102,200 for this building. See detailed data for Ireland here (click on title):

Dealing with Construction Permits in Ireland – Doing Business – World Bank Group

Construction industry commentators have been calling for an immediate review of S.I.9. Do we really want to see our ranking in this section slide further over the next 12 months due to the delays and costs associated with the legacy S.I.9 problems inherited from  former Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan?

*World Bank Rankings for 2014 have been adjusted for change in methodology.

Useful Links:

World Bank  rankings:

World Bank ‘Doing Business’ Report 2015

‘Ease of Doing Business’ Data on Ireland

‘Ease of Doing Business’ Data on UK

Link to Reform Simulator:

Other posts of interest:

World Bank Report 2015 | Ireland’s poor construction regulations are the biggest drag on our ranking

Collins & O’Cofaigh | “the 38 steps” and the complexity of our regulations

World Bank Rankings [2014], Ireland & SI.9 – Look Back 1

S.I.9 – Where are we now? 27 October 2014

Commencement Notices – Update | 22 October 2014

€ 5 billion | The extraordinary cost of S.I.9 self-certification by 2020

Pyrite: the spiraling cost of no Local Authority Inspections

A ‘perfect storm’ for housing? 

Residential construction down in 2014 Q1+ Q2: (CSO statistics)

How much would 100% independent inspections by Local Authorities cost?

The cost of a Solution to BC(A)R SI.9?

UK + Ireland | take a quick trip to Holyhead with Breg Blog…