Falklands : Yellow Card Given to Builders - Failures to Provide Stage Notices
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 28.01.2005 (Article Archived on 11.02.2005)
At the December 2004 meeting of the Planning and Building Committee, a member requested comment from the Building Adviser upon two instances where she was aware the builder had not notified his office as required by the terms of The Building Regulations 1999. These were in connection with a large double garage attached to a house and the other a new dwelling on East Stanley.
“Yellow card” given to builders – failures to provide building stage notices
By Graham France (FIG)
At the December 2004 meeting of the Planning and Building Committee, a member requested comment from the Building Adviser upon two instances where she was aware the builder had not notified his office as required by the terms of The Building Regulations 1999. These were in connection with a large double garage attached to a house and the other a new dwelling on East Stanley.
Graham France, the Building Adviser, was able to say he was aware of both cases and had spoken to the persons concerned. He also knew of many other instances where both notice of intention to commence work, also to cover up excavations for a foundation, the foundation itself, damp proof courses and drainage pipes had not been provided. In these cases he had spoken and also written in most instances to the persons involved to remind them of their legal obligations.
He went on to explain the seriousness of such failure to give notice, pointing out that the regulations make it clear that the person who contravenes the requirements of the regulations commits an offence. The enabling legislation for these regulations, he explained, is The Building Control Ordinance 1994 in which section 7 says “a person who contravenes any provision contained in building regulations, other than a provision designated in the regulations as one to which this section does not apply, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding the maximum of level 5 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted.” Level 5 is currently set at £3,000.
In response to a request to report further, the Building Adviser gave more details on January 13th when the Committee next met. He itemised fourteen cases going back to May 2004, the earliest being an extension to a dwelling where the builder had neglected to provide not less than 48 hours notice before beginning the operation, giving the date and time at which work was to begin. The builder then went on to pour concrete without giving at least 24 hours prior notice to allow inspection of the foundation trenches, and then laid block work without the opportunity for inspection before doing so as he similarly failed to give the required notice.
Such failures meant the absence of impartial checks to ensure that the quality of work met the required standards, checks that the house owner, or the prospective house owner, rightly expected would take place.
The Building Regulations, he pointed out, are there to protect the public interest as they relate to the health and safety of persons in and about all buildings. In the case of private dwellings, the regulations protect the interests of a homeowner. It is often said that the construction and ownership of a home is frequently a person’s biggest financial commitment in their lifetime. Consequently, any breeches of those regulations are a very serious concern.
There could be little excuse of not knowing, as with every Building Permit issued from the Building Control Office a letter is sent detailing the inspection regime to be followed. Blank notices which could be used by the builder and which acted as a further reminder of when due notices were to be given always accompanies this.
It should also be remembered that, prior to the regulations coming into force (on 1st February 2000), significant publicity was given to the event both by letter to each builder, notices published in Penguin News, and even an interview on FIBS.
The Building Adviser then went on to describe other cases where there had been a breach of the regulations. These included works executed without a Building Permit having first been obtained, failure to provide means for the satisfactory disposal of roof water from a new building, and absence of prior notice of intention to build, as an extension to a house, a conservatory classed as an “exempt” building. These, similarly, meant an offence or offences had been committed in each case.
Members of the Planning and Building Committee then discussed these events and decided that, whilst legal action might not be taken over such failures by the builders in question, the persons concerned should consider they have been shown a “yellow card”. Where any further such incidents arise the Committee, they instructed, are to be informed and consideration will then be given to taking that course of action which is open to them.
|
