Architect Registration

I think you rather missed the whole point, yourself.

My last post related to two things.

1. A desire for more guidance within the Building Regs for non-strip foundation types.
Having would-be homesteaders aware of all their foundation options ought help struc engs to get more business also.
I assume you do not object to this.

2. A doubting that the savings derived from having a struct eng specify adequate but cost-effective non-strip foundations for a house would exceed that eng’s own fees by much more than part of a non-strip foundation contractor’s profit margin.
I say this because, while someone like you could make up a more optimum DESIGN for a given house’s foundation, you would not honestly be able to say that, when your custom design is implemented on the site, that it would turn out to be MUCH CHEAPER than the closest standard ringbeam + raft foundation design by Supergrund, Viking or whoever.
This is simply a consequence of the extra cost of customised elements for the foundation, e.g. for a ringbeam + raft foundation, the EPS channel section for the ringbeam would need to be made to non-stock size and would demand new tooling to be made by the EPS moulder. It would be cheaper to use stock-issue EPS section – even if it is overdesigned – plus more concrete than is strictly required than to make a one-off EPS mould and use the optimum amount of concrete.
I think that ought be clear enough to you now.

Obviously, as the size of a building increases, the economics tend to favour custom designed foundations.
But for a <2,000 sq ft house, I doubt if a struct eng can justify his involvement based on cost savings alone.
(I accept that there are a few other areas where a struc /civ eng can positively contribute to a self-build job.)

If you can illustrate an example of a given house plan where what I suggest is NOT the case, then I am more than interested.
Just don’t expect me to pay you for your sample estimates !
I’d like to keep my few pound for a trip to Spain myself, and not for a deserved holiday either . . . .

I will do a few sketches for you to explain my point about why it is cheaper to cutom design at a later date

C’mon – I’m dying to see the sketches!

One example with good ground…….
This is another example on how you can save up to 50% concrete under all the walls and you also do not need thickenings under all the walls unlike a strip.
Now to anyone who is just joining this discussion, this is just a simplified example to help express a point, there is alot more to it so dont go running off to carry out any construction work without consulting your engineer :thumbup:

Sketch exactly where you would propose to put it and I will let you know.
To make this work successfully, you need to be able to judge the bearing capacity, soil type(s), colour, seasonal water table, texture, consistency to list the most common criteria, if you are confident with this, then you could do it.

The load from that floor is not transferred to to the perimeter foundation. It is transferred down through the insulation to the hardcore. That floor is a straightforward ground bearing floor slab. If the insulation does what is says on the tin, then the stress will be substantially reduced by the time it hits the subsoil. The insulation in that sketch is playing a critical structural role.

No, you never interfere with the soil below the cut, you excavate away from the property on both sides and draw strike lines between the excavation pits to develop a picture of what is going on. The soil beneath the footprint, should always be left undisturbed below formation level.

2.1m is not that safe, if the underside of your foundation is at 1m below ground level, then you only have 1.1m to the water table. You have to have a min. of the same width as your foundation to satisfy building regs. There is a certain area of soil beneath the foundation that gets stressed called the “bulb of pressure”, if it gets wet, then the bearing capacity is significantly reduced, in Sands, the bearing capacity reduces by 50% when wet. Examine the sides of your pit for rusty stains (deposits of iron oxide) they will show you the height of the winter water table.

Not mad about that detail to be honest, it would require gound ground conditions and an excellent structural performance from the insulation, I wonder if those companies ever considered “creep” taking a toll on the insulation. This occurs from long term compression and causes concrete to shrink over time. The concrete is reinforced with extra steel in areas of significant compression.

To prevent speculation, I confirm that the Architects’ Alliance of Ireland has not appointed Ernst & Young as its auditors.
The reason for that firm’s recent decision to resign as auditors to the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (Limited) must be found elsewhere.

It appears that the Registration Body has made it possible for Irish graduates without Part III to become registered via the Section 15 provisions of the BCA 2007.

This arises through its decision that the “marginal note” may be disregarded when interpreting that Section. Section 15(a) reads:-
“a national of a Member State who holds evidence of a formal qualification as an architect listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 of the Directive that satisfies the minimum training conditions referred to in Article 46 of the Directive and which is accompanied, if appropriate, by a certificate listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 of the Directive”.

It seems that Section 15 may now be understood to address EU/EEA nationals with Directive compliant Irish qualifications unless those persons are provided for elsewhere in Part 3 of the Act – which is not the case for Irish graduates without Part III.

The Directive compliant qualifications for Ireland are:-
1. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch. NUI)
2. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.)
(Previously, until 2002 – Degree standard diploma in architecture (Dip. Arch))
3. Certificate of associateship (ARIAI)
4. Certificate of membership (MRIAI) – This last category is provided for in Section 14(2)(b)

Despite all the surrounding guff, the extract below provides clarification. (The author is the Registar. The context is the eligibility of Irish Nationals with Directive compliant qualifications awarded by another Member State. They were overlooked in the drafting of Part 3. It is the further consequences of the legal advice referred to in the extract that is, I believe, of significance to Irish graduates.)
The central matter is found in this sentence:-
“Subsections (1)(a)-(c) refer to nationals of any member State obtaining qualifications in any Member State”.

“The legal advice can be summarised as follows. There appears to be a conflict between the marginal note attaching to section 15 and the specific text of section 15 itself and also article 1 of the Qualifications Directive (2005/36/EC). The provisions of section 15 and 16 intend to cover the position of eligibility for registration in the register of architects insofar as such persons are not already covered by section 14 dealing with holders of qualifications from the republic of Ireland. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act purport to make provisions in relation to ‘holders of qualifications from other States’ as envisaged by section 14(2)(c). Section 15 is comprised of numerous subsections. Subsections (1)(a)-(c) refer to nationals of any member State obtaining qualifications in any Member State. Subsection (1)(d) refers to a national of a Member State obtaining qualifications in his or her own Member States. Subsection 1(e) relates to any person who obtains qualifications in a non Member State but has such qualifications recognised by a Competent Authority in any Member State. Subsection 1(f) refers to non Member State nationals who are eligible to have qualifications recognised in the republic of Ireland via and international agreement. Subsection 1(g) refers to nationals of Member States who are not eligible under the preceding categories but who qualify under any of the derogations.
The terms of the Directive, and in particular article 1 are also very relevant. Article 1 provides for recognition of qualifications obtained in another Member State without reference to nationality. It is also important to have regard to section 2(3) of the Building Control Act which provides that “a word or expression used in part 3,4,5, or 7 and which is also used in the Directive has the same meaning in that part as it has in the Directive”. The query was as to whether the relevant provisions in the Directive take precedence in the event of any conflict with similar provisions in the Building Control Act 2007 and apart from the general body of European law which recognises the supremacy of European law in relation to conflicts with National Law, section 2(3) of the Building Control Act 2007 affords the provisions in article 1 priority in the event of any conflict with the provisions contained in sections 16 and 17. The Interpretation Act 2005 was also consulted in the review of this issue and based on the fact that the legal opinion is that sections 15 and 16 do not give rise to obscurity, supported the opinion that the marginal note in Section 15 could be disregarded.”

You will have seen that Section 15(a) is qualified thus:-
“that satisfies the minimum training conditions referred to in Article 46 of the Directive and which is accompanied, if appropriate, by a certificate listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 of the Directive”.

Those qualifying remarks need to be addressed:-

1. It is important to understand that according to the European Commission, the certificate is not regarded as a qualification;
2. In its contribution to the European Commission’s Evaluation of the PQD, Ireland’s Competent Authority has stated that the Annex V Irish degrees fulfil the Article 46 standards (which we know anyway);
3. A certificate from Ireland was added in June this year to Annex V (as well as one from the UK). There was none at all before.

Three reasons may be given to show that it would be inappropriate to impose the certificate requirement on Irish graduates applying under Section 15. These are:-
(i) Doing so would make for a circular argument because the certificate amounts to proof of registration;
(ii) There was no such certificate tabled for Ireland at the time of the passing of the Act – so its imposition was obviously not in the minds of the legislators, thus any such demand is void;
(iii) Irish nationals, with UK qualifications, have already been registered through Section 15 without having such a certificate.

I have presented my personal observations here. My purpose is limited to suggesting to anyone who might benefit (i.e. Directive compliant graduates) that the matter may warrant proper investigation by a legally trained person. I will be happy to provide supporting documents.

Here, in the inimitable words of the Registration Body, is the certificate description newly added to Annex V, point 5.7.1.
It applies to Irish trained architects who seek professional recognition elsewhere in Europe:-

“Certificate of fulfillment of qualifications requirements for professional recognition as an architect in Ireland issued by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI).”

In my earlier post on this topic, my own wording was somewhat unclear. I used the word “qualification” to mean two things. On one hand I meant academic qualification and on the other I meant requirement or condition.
Thus, my meaning is that the required certificate is not treated as an academic qualification by the European Commission, it is only evidence of registration in the Home State.

The disregarded Section 15 “marginal note” reads:-

“Registration of nationals from certain other states — main categories of such nationals”

The way this works for unqualified architects is very simple.
The competent authority has offered them a way to be registered.
If they want to be registered they must grasp this offer with both hands.

The competent authority has been deemed as such by an Act of the Oireachtas.
Regardless of what any Senior Counsel may opine, under Irish law what they say goes.
If RIAI register them but their stance is then found to be flawed they would have a good case.

If they aren’t going to take up this offer, this implies they (i) don’t want to be registered, or (ii)tested.
If its the former they are acting arbitrarily and illogically or else they may be willing to give up using the Title.
If its the latter, this suggests (i) they know in themselves they’re not up to it or (ii) they were tested before and failed.

If they want to keep using the Title Architect they must try their best to become registered or they’ll have no locus standii.
The Building Control Act 2007 came into operation on May 1st 2008 and that means next year its coming up to its third anniversary.
Given the recent Priory Hall disaster, IMO the RIAI will need to be seen to exert its authority and unregistered architects are a soft target.