During the past thirty years, the systems established by the Building Control Act 1992 have failed to prevent widespread significant defects in Irish housing, particularly apartments. The 2022 Report of the Working Group to Examine Defects in Housing found that 40-70% of all apartments built between 1991 and 2014 were likely affected by fire safety defects, and 50%-80% might be affected by one or more of fire safety, structural safety, or water ingress [1]. In this context, the announcement in June 2024 that a national Building Regulator is to be established is most welcome – but will it be sufficient to change a building and compliance culture established over decades?
The creation of a regulator is an objective of the current Programme for Government and was recommended by the Building Standards Regulator Steering Group report of June 2024, which envisages an independent central competent authority with the powers of a national building control authority (“BCA”) and to ensure the adequate and consistent delivery of building control services, inspection and enforcement, to coordinate and provide support services to local authorities, and to ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of market surveillance of construction products [2]. The regulator is also intended to act as a repository of best practice – driving, promoting, and fostering compliance competency, and consistency, and building control.
When I appeared before the Oireachtas housing committee in 2017, I advocated for the creation of such a body with those powers, and emphasised in particular the need for local building control bodies to be overseen by a national regulator; the resulting committee report recommended creation of a regulator in almost identical terms to that now proposed [3].
I found in the course of my PhD research that enforcement activity by building control authorities nationally was sparse to non-existent, that there was no central repository of enforcement activity, and that most building control authorities were simply not resourced to carry out the level of inspections and enforcement needed for the system to be effective.
I had found no evidence of any prosecutions ever being brought under the Building Control Act during the course of my PhD. Since then, I note that in the 2022 annual report for Dublin City Council that two prosecutions were initiated by that authority in 2022. I do not equate prosecution with effectiveness, but all of the international models and Irish models in other regulated industries show that effective and visible enforcement is an essential part of any regulated system.
A fundamental requirement for the effectiveness of the regulator will be to ensure that it is resourced and staffed appropriately. The steering group report notes that in April 2023 there were fifty-eight full-time equivalent building control officers nationally, while suggesting that the new regulatory body will need around five-hundred staff. The steering group noted that 27% of new buildings were inspected in 2021. This means that the vast majority of new buildings are being inspected only by individuals who are appointed, and paid for, by owner/developers.
The findings and recommendations of the Hackitt reports [4] and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry [5] have led to dramatic changes to the organisation of building control in the UK. The Hackitt report of May 2018 found that the current regulatory system for ensuring fire safety in high-rise and complex buildings was not fit for purpose both during construction and occupation, due to the culture of the industry and effectiveness of regulators. A new regulatory framework was recommended to cover fire and structural safety for the life-cycle of a building recorded in a digital record, focusing on the building as a system and analysing risk accordingly.
The UK Building Safety Act 2022 creates the new statutory role of building regulator, establishes a regime for higher risk buildings, provides an extensive regime for remediation of defects, establishes a New Homes Ombudsman, and deals with regulation of construction products and regulation of inspectors. The Act incorporates governance of the building life cycle in into three gateways, including planning and design, construction, and occupation, thereby adopting the recommendation of the Hackitt report that a “golden thread” of information relation to building safety should be created and maintained, and should inform all future interventions in that building.
It is surprising that the Irish Steering Group report does not refer to the Hackitt and Grenfell reports and the comprehensive overhaul of UK building regulation that led to the Building Safety Act 2022.
The Phase 2 (and final) report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was published in September 2024. Amongst its many recommendations are that the Government appoint an independent panel to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process; this issue is also raised in the Hackitt reports. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations system introduced in Ireland in 2014, often presented as the turning-point for cultural change in Irish building regulation, is designed to operate on this basis; designers and certifiers are appointed and paid for by developers and building owners themselves.
It is vital that the regulatory model put in place should be informed by our recent history, international models for effective building regulation, and of the lessons learned elsewhere. Lives have been destroyed by building defects in Ireland. It is time to recognise the scale of what is required, and to apply ourselves to designing an effective model that will meet the enormous demand for new homes into the future.
1. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Report of the Working Group to Examine Defects in Housing, June 2022.
2. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Report of the Building Regulator Steering Group, June 2024.
3. Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning & Local Government, Safe as Houses? A Report on Building Standards, Building Controls & Consumer Protection, December 2017.
4. Building a Safer Future Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, May 2018.
5. Report of the Public Inquiry into the Fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. Chairman: The Rt Hon Sir Martin Moore-Bick, Phase 1 Report (October 2019) and Phase 2 Report (September 2024).
During the past thirty years, the systems established by the Building Control Act 1992 have failed to prevent widespread significant defects in Irish housing, particularly apartments. The 2022 Report of the Working Group to Examine Defects in Housing found that 40-70% of all apartments built between 1991 and 2014 were likely affected by fire safety defects, and 50%-80% might be affected by one or more of fire safety, structural safety, or water ingress [1]. In this context, the announcement in June 2024 that a national Building Regulator is to be established is most welcome – but will it be sufficient to change a building and compliance culture established over decades?
The creation of a regulator is an objective of the current Programme for Government and was recommended by the Building Standards Regulator Steering Group report of June 2024, which envisages an independent central competent authority with the powers of a national building control authority (“BCA”) and to ensure the adequate and consistent delivery of building control services, inspection and enforcement, to coordinate and provide support services to local authorities, and to ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of market surveillance of construction products [2]. The regulator is also intended to act as a repository of best practice – driving, promoting, and fostering compliance competency, and consistency, and building control.
When I appeared before the Oireachtas housing committee in 2017, I advocated for the creation of such a body with those powers, and emphasised in particular the need for local building control bodies to be overseen by a national regulator; the resulting committee report recommended creation of a regulator in almost identical terms to that now proposed [3].
I found in the course of my PhD research that enforcement activity by building control authorities nationally was sparse to non-existent, that there was no central repository of enforcement activity, and that most building control authorities were simply not resourced to carry out the level of inspections and enforcement needed for the system to be effective.
I had found no evidence of any prosecutions ever being brought under the Building Control Act during the course of my PhD. Since then, I note that in the 2022 annual report for Dublin City Council that two prosecutions were initiated by that authority in 2022. I do not equate prosecution with effectiveness, but all of the international models and Irish models in other regulated industries show that effective and visible enforcement is an essential part of any regulated system.
A fundamental requirement for the effectiveness of the regulator will be to ensure that it is resourced and staffed appropriately. The steering group report notes that in April 2023 there were fifty-eight full-time equivalent building control officers nationally, while suggesting that the new regulatory body will need around five-hundred staff. The steering group noted that 27% of new buildings were inspected in 2021. This means that the vast majority of new buildings are being inspected only by individuals who are appointed, and paid for, by owner/developers.
The findings and recommendations of the Hackitt reports [4] and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry [5] have led to dramatic changes to the organisation of building control in the UK. The Hackitt report of May 2018 found that the current regulatory system for ensuring fire safety in high-rise and complex buildings was not fit for purpose both during construction and occupation, due to the culture of the industry and effectiveness of regulators. A new regulatory framework was recommended to cover fire and structural safety for the life-cycle of a building recorded in a digital record, focusing on the building as a system and analysing risk accordingly.
The UK Building Safety Act 2022 creates the new statutory role of building regulator, establishes a regime for higher risk buildings, provides an extensive regime for remediation of defects, establishes a New Homes Ombudsman, and deals with regulation of construction products and regulation of inspectors. The Act incorporates governance of the building life cycle in into three gateways, including planning and design, construction, and occupation, thereby adopting the recommendation of the Hackitt report that a “golden thread” of information relation to building safety should be created and maintained, and should inform all future interventions in that building.
It is surprising that the Irish Steering Group report does not refer to the Hackitt and Grenfell reports and the comprehensive overhaul of UK building regulation that led to the Building Safety Act 2022.
The Phase 2 (and final) report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was published in September 2024. Amongst its many recommendations are that the Government appoint an independent panel to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process; this issue is also raised in the Hackitt reports. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations system introduced in Ireland in 2014, often presented as the turning-point for cultural change in Irish building regulation, is designed to operate on this basis; designers and certifiers are appointed and paid for by developers and building owners themselves.
It is vital that the regulatory model put in place should be informed by our recent history, international models for effective building regulation, and of the lessons learned elsewhere. Lives have been destroyed by building defects in Ireland. It is time to recognise the scale of what is required, and to apply ourselves to designing an effective model that will meet the enormous demand for new homes into the future.
With the recent announcement that a national Building Regulator is to be established, Dr. Deirdre Ní Fhloinn examines what led us here, and pathways to improved regulatory control.
ReadSpace-heating accounts for 35% of total energy-related emissions in Ireland today. As one key component of its response to the National Climate Action Plan, South Dublin County Council (SDCC) committed to the decarbonisation of its county-town, Tallaght. Nationally, decarbonisation will rely on increasing renewable generation assets – wind and solar – on the grid to a target of 85% by 2030. This will enable significant carbon-savings through the widespread electrification of the heat and transport sectors.
The Tallaght District-Heating (DH) Scheme was identified as a pilot project to promote this switch to low-carbon, renewable heating. 70% of the Dublin region is suitable for adaptation to DH (increasing to 86% in the city centre). There are sufficient waste heat sources in Dublin to service the equivalent of 1.6 million homes; DH can recycle and harness this waste heat as a low-carbon resource for space-heating.
In 2016, as part of a five-city EU Inter-Reg programme to foster DH technology in northern Europe, €950,000 was made available (including €347,000 from SDCC resources) to underwrite initial work on the Tallaght DH network. This seed-funding allowed the formation of South Dublin District-Heating Company – Ireland’s first not-for-profit, publicly-owned heat utility, now trading as ‘Heat Works’.
The DH network was envisioned, championed, and project managed by the SDCC Architects Department, building on experience installing CHP, solar arrays, heat pumps, and bio-mass boilers in public buildings over a twenty-year period. The DH scheme was a collaboration between SDCC, Amazon, Fortum (the contractor), and the Dublin energy agency Codema, which has provided a low-carbon solution, optimising the potential of recyclable heat combined with innovative heat-pump technology. Heat Works is set up to act as an exemplar heat-network business in Ireland, delivering economic, environmental, and social benefits for residents and businesses while supporting the local and national climate action plans by reducing our carbon footprint.
Heat Source
At this time, Amazon Web Services (AWS) were planning a large data centre in Tallaght. As part of pre-planning discussions with SDCC, AWS agreed to collect and make available waste-heat from the data-centre’s cooling-system to the DH network. As part of this agreement, waste-heat collection equipment and ongoing heat delivery to Heat Works will be at the expense of AWS in line with their company commitment to global carbon-reduction. The Tallaght DH network is the first scheme in Ireland to capture and efficiently re-use waste heat from a large-scale data centre using bespoke 4G district-heating technology. 10MW of waste-heat is available for use in the Tallaght network on this basis.
It is currently estimated that by 2028 data centres may be using up to 29% of the national grid, and by 2030 will have added 13% to carbon-emissions on the grid. While not eliminating all primary energy use, DH can seriously offset the generation of both heat and carbon for space-heating required by DH customers and greatly reduce carbon emissions discharging energy-intensive waste-heat from cooling systems in data centres.
The Energy Centre and Pipe-Network
To utilise the waste-heat generated by AWS, a distinctive zinc-clad Energy Centre was constructed adjoining the data centre to collect, consolidate, and distribute hot-water to the DH network. The hot air from AWS is collected and run through a heat-pump to raise the temperature of water to 25-27°C. This water is then transferred to the Heat Works Energy Centre building where the temperature is raised again through bespoke centralised large-scale heat pumps to 85°C and sent through the pipe network. In turn, the servers in the data centre are provided with cool air as a by-product from the Energy Centre. The Energy Centre also includes full peak load back-up via a 3MW electric boiler to ensure heat supply to the network can be met at all times. The scheme is fully electric with no on-site combustion resulting in the elimination of particle emissions. In addition, the carbon content of the heat will continue to reduce over time in line with the decarbonisation of the national grid through increased deployment of renewable sources, e.g. onshore / offshore windfarms, solar power, etc [1].
This Tallaght DH scheme is currently providing both space-heating to buildings on the DH network and cooling to the data centre [2]. The scheme currently has planning permission for 400m³ of thermal water-storage. In time, this will enable greater flexibility and utilisation of off-peak electricity, which will increasingly enable the DH network to support the grid by providing greater demand-side response services to regulate large fluctuations associated with wind-power generation. The initial pipe network measures 1.6km in length, utilising different sizes of pre-insulated pipes to ensure minimal thermal losses. Hot water is distributed to customer buildings through the pipe network from the Energy Centre. Heat exchanger substations are located within the customer buildings with an indirect system (the network water crosses and heats the customers’ water, but they do not mix). Energy meters measure the amount of thermal energy used by the customer for heating spaces, HVAC systems, and sanitary hot water.
Overall, the Tallaght DH Scheme produces CO₂ savings of 1500 tonnes per annum in the first phase of the scheme along with a reduction of 528kg in nitrogen oxide emissions. This will increase as the scheme expands and the input of renewably-generated electricity increases. In effect, fossil-fuel usage will be reduced by 100% as the grid is made fully renewable. The lack of combustion onsite eliminates particulates and provides cleaner air for Tallaght town centre.
In addition to road testing DH generation and control technologies in Ireland, the Tallaght scheme was set up to trial the legal, financial, procurement, and governance structures required for a heating network in Ireland. A series of innovative contract types had to be developed for the project carried out under the skilful direction and experience of Philip Lee and Associates Solicitors. The fledgling company required an experienced energy-supply company (ESCO) to design, construct, and operate the DH network. This role was tendered across the whole of the EU using the OJEU process. The tender was arranged as a ‘Competitive Dialogue’ in three stages culminating in the submission of a final design and financial bid. This included the design of the Energy Centre and the distribution pipe network. The preferred bidder was Fortum, a multi-national ESCO based in Finland with extensive experience in DH across the Nordic countries and Eastern Europe.
Procurement Models
A Local Energy-Supply Contract (Design, Build, Operate, & Maintain – DBOM) between the ESCO and Heat Works was agreed. This contract is divided in two phases – Construction Phase (Design & Build), and Operation Phase (Operate & Maintain). Heat Works buys the heat produced from the ESCO based on a fixed operational carbon-efficiency figure. The manner in which this heat is produced, and the risks associated with its production is the responsibility and risk of the ESCO, and the cost of electrical supply is at the risk of Heat Works. A separate new contract had to be developed and agreed to address the transfer of waste heat from AWS to Heat Works, and the return of lower-temperature water from the DH network to AWS to assist in cooling within the data centre.
A customer-contract was also required addressing the sale of heat from Heat Works to each customer. Heat Works are responsible for customer relations and calculation of customer bills. Monthly customer bills include fixed components (two standing charges for administration and network maintenance), and a variable charge for quantity of heat supplied. The initial customers are SDCC (County Hall and Library, the Innovation Centre, and two-hundred affordable apartments) and TUD Tallaght (main campus building, SSRH sports building, and the North Block Catering College). To date, 70,000m² of space are connected to the Tallaght network, and total investment stands at €8 million [3].
The contract for Design, Build, Operate, and Maintenance was signed in October 2020 and works commenced in 2021. Works were directly affected by COVID-19 government-imposed site closures. Testing began on the plant and network during October, November, and December 2022. Heat was delivered to first customers from 19 January 2023 with Substantial Completion achieved in July 2023. Since then, the district-heating scheme has been in its Operation and Maintenance phase.
At just 6%, Ireland currently has the lowest share of renewable heat generation across the EU and is almost totally reliant on imported fossil fuels to meet its heat demand. This article discusses the benefits of South Dublin County Council’s recently commissioned district-heating scheme, its complex structure and procurement of same, and the role of the architect in such decarbonisation projects.
ReadGraduates of architecture in the Republic of Ireland are facing a new significant barrier to accreditation, much discussed among affected individuals for the past year. What is a long journey to becoming an architect has, since the beginning of 2023, become implausibly longer again for many students as one of the two universities that offer the Professional Diploma in Architectural Practice in Ireland (PDAP – legally labelled the Professional Practice Exam, or PPE) decided to cease its offering to new applicants for at least three years – up to 2026 at the earliest [1]. This reduced the number of places available from a previous average of roughly 140 per year to the seventy places remaining at the only other university in Ireland which offers the course. In September 2024, this number will reduce again, as the remaining university removes twenty-two places from its offering. With five Irish universities producing roughly 200-250 graduates per year, combined with the number of expatriates working in Ireland in the architectural profession and requiring professional exams – this has resulted in a situation where there are, at the time of writing, around 400 expressions of interest vying for forty-eight places for the single PDAP course. This means that only one in eight to ten applicants will get a place, with the possibility for further growth to these numbers year-on-year.
In April 2024, while the RIAI issued an updated statement on the dwindling capacity problems, with the welcome proposal of facilitating the PPE themselves from 2025, they did not specify how many graduates this course would accommodate, nor give any indication how much it would cost [2]. The problem is inevitably clogging the system with graduates, who have project and salary expectations that are determined by the timeline within which they complete the PPE. The current delays consequently are affecting their plans of a rational timeframe for career progression. Employers, too, will be directly affected, as they become encumbered with graduates who cannot progress through the system reasonably, and who they thus cannot expect to charge for as registered architects, or whose CVs they may not use to their full potential to win work. What should be even more alarming for the renowned richness of the profession in Ireland is how the backlog is delaying the beginning of the careers of potential sole-practitioners, previously a significant proportion of practising architects. In facing the current delays in starting the PPE, all graduates objectively must contend with a lag before they are provided the opportunity to contribute their ideas, ability, and energy to the industry in Ireland. Professional roadblocks could, and are, becoming repercussive personal reckonings for many, that arguably conclude with emigration to countries with more responsive registration systems as the only viable solution.
While legal protection for the title 'Architect' has been a persistent part of the RIAI’s two-fold aim of protecting and promoting members since 1885 [3], the role of the architect and the associated PPE was only legislatively defined by Part 3 of the Building Control Act 2007, which also bestowed upon the RIAI with the legal responsibility to manage accreditation of that title [4]. Part 3 of the Act was not “intended to exclude anybody, but, rather, to include all those who meet a defined minimum standard” [5]. In the current climate, the backlog in achieving accreditation has become so restrictive that graduates of the industry are potentially being prevented, legally, from working independently in it. This hard-won and necessary tool to protect the profession is now rendered as the means by which its reputation is tarnished – through exclusion of new members.
The situation reveals a functional issue within the increasingly fragmented structure of the pathway to becoming an architect. The industry’s typically younger members, who have studied as long and as hard as those before them, have danced through the same rules but have reached a surprise stumbling block right at the very end. These members are becoming extremely frustrated with the slow pace of any resolution to a worsening problem. The immediate function and future of an industry cannot and should not subside because of the decision to close one course, and improved access to the profession should be increased in line with demand for university places and PPE courses to secure its future. The welcome development of a new course by the RIAI should be the beginning. Members of the industry at all levels should also galvanise government support for the formation of new courses that maintain sustainable access to the PPE. After all, as noted in the RIAI’s statement, architecture’s importance in the symbiotic development of the built landscape with the abstract social values of the people it shelters exists in governmental policy [6]. High-quality design of the future built environment, and surely by consequence, the place and skills of its future architects, is in its heart.
In this article, Laoise McGrath discusses the barriers facing graduates of architecture in attaining professional accreditation in Ireland. Among the lucky few to have a place in a diploma course, Laoise also discusses the relevant factors at play in enabling colleagues and friends make informed choices about where they may want to live and practice in the near future.
ReadWebsite by Good as Gold.