Are shoddy building practices consigned to the boom’s rubble?

Michael Clifford submitted a request to attend a forum today aimed at reviewing new building regulations but was declined. He explains that others from the meeting include consumer representatives and independent voices within the building industry. In addition, the ‘independent

Wed, 15 Apr, 2015 - 01:00

Mick Clifford

GEORGE Bernard Shaw might have enjoyed a gathering that is taking place today in the Custom House, on the north bank of the Liffey. It was Shaw who suggested that “all professions are a conspiracy against the laity”, and while today’s gathering of professionals isn’t ostensibly a conspiracy, today’s laity is notably excluded from it.

The occasion is the first forum to review the new building regulations that were introduced just over a year ago. SI9 came about following revelations about the disastrous system of self regulation in the building industry through the years of bubble and plunder.

This shambles was brought into focus through shoddy and dangerous work, exposed in places like Priory Hall, and the growing incidences of pyrite in construction. More recently, the Irish Examiner has documented the myriad construction problems with the Longboat Quay development on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay in Dublin. A fortnight ago, a fire in Newbridge, Co Kildare, which engulfed six homes in 20 minutes, raised further questions about how the buildings were constructed. And just last Monday, a court heard that an apartment development in Dundrum in the capital, was “uninhabitable”, due to construction issues, rendering it “a sort of Priory Hall scenario”.

All of these cases involve construction that was undertaken in the bubble years, between 2002 and 2008. Only time will tell where else shoddy work done in those demented years has rendered habitation dangerous.

The question that has screamed out from all of these discoveries is who allowed such sub-standard and dangerous work to be passed off as acceptable or safe? The answer is our old friend from the financial world — light-touch regulation.

The response from the industry and the government to this awakening has been the introduction of what is claimed are tighter regulations on building. This took the form of Building Control Regulation SI9, which came into force in March 2014. The major plank to the new regulations is the introduction to the process of an “assigned certifier”.

DISCOVER MORE CONTENT LIKE THIS

The certifier is drawn from the ranks of architects, engineers and building surveyors. His or her duty is to check the building process at each stage, and certify in writing that it complies with the design. In theory, this eliminates the potential for builders or developers to cut corners, and ensures that a tighter rein is kept on the work. This new system is designed to replace the self-certification which was at the root of the light-touch regulation.

All that sounds fine and dandy, but problems have surfaced. The new system has been particularly onerous for those who self-build, and in the construction of one-off housing, the latter an area which carries a certain political ballast. Housing Minister Paudie Coffey is reportedly anxious to find a solution in these sectors, to boost construction and bring down costs.

That issue will be one of the main topics at today’s opening forum to review the regulations. What exactly will be discussed and agreed we don’t know, because despite the protection of consumers being the impetus for new regulations, no real representatives for consumer interests will be there. Neither will the media. A request from this reporter to attend was turned down.

Neither will there be independent views from within the industry. The Irish Examiner understands that at least two individuals who have long records in the industry, and consider themselves independent, were denied access. No minutes will be kept of the gathering, although a report will be compiled and forwarded to Mr Coffey.

Submissions will be accepted at a later stage of the process, but today’s closed gathering suggests that it might all be a done deal by that stage. The only representatives at the gathering which might have consumer interests at the forefront, are those from the building control sections of local authorities. However, voices from that quarter are highly unlikely to dominate in a gathering top-heavy with vested interests.

The forum is taking place against the background of an increasingly urgent need to greatly expand housing starts. As such, the professional bodies will be playing with the wind at their backs. As with any vested interests, their primary concerns will be reduction of costs and the removal of anything they regard as an impediment to getting the job done as fast as possible.

From that perspective, it’s likely that the original regulations will be watered down, and not just in the area of one-off housing.

What is very unlikely to be discussed at all is the elephant in the room, indicating that this brave new world of assigned certification is, to a large extent, self-regulation by another name.

The independence of these certifiers is highly questionable. For instance, a developer can employ an assigned certifier. Where lies that conflict of interest? Nominally, the certifier is supposed to be operating in the public interest, and that of the law. If he or she encounters shoddy work, and the employer disputes the certifier’s analysis, who wins out? Who is buttering the certifier’s bread?

Equally, who polices the system? The architects, engineers and surveyors who qualify as certifiers are answerable only to their respective professional bodies, which act as both regulator and representative for their members. More blatant conflicts of interest.

In the UK, they do things differently. The certification is undertaken by building control inspectors for local authorities. This eliminates conflicts of interest. Alternatively, there is also a system of independent certifiers, but, crucially, they operate under a register controlled by the local authority. Again, here, the certifier knows who the boss is, and to whom he or she is answerable.

To go down that route would mean the State taking a more direct interest in the construction process, to ensure that its citizens lives and well-being are protected. That hands-on approach would shift power from vested interests to the State, and require greater effort from state bodies, although not necessarily any extra financial cost to the exchequer. But the downside, for political figures in particular, is that it might mean more hassle. And why bring any hassle on yourself, when the alternative of taking a punt that the industry might police itself is far more palatable.

George Bernard Shaw would find himself right at home with this lot.

Forum roll-call

According to the Department of the Environment, the following are the “stakeholders” who will be represented at today’s forum:

Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI)

Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland (SCSI)

Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland (ACEI)

Engineers Ireland (EI)

The Law Society

The Construction Industry Federation

The Irish Home Builders Association

The Irish Association of Self Builders

Architect’s Alliance of Ireland