Priory Hall apartments: What went wrong and what can we learn from this?

[ang1170]

Even where the architect is appointed to carry out limited inspections, clients are seldom willing to appoint a site architect for the duration and even where they are, the architect will usually not attend more than weekly or bi-weekly as per the norm. During his absence work can get covered up.

This is where the term "visual inspection" is quite properly applied to Opinions of Compliance where periodic inspection occurs. It is a statement of fact that the architect is limited to what he can see on the day he attends. It is not an attempt to ease out of the considerably liability that attaches to his Opinion.

That's where I think the system is broken: if visual inspection is insufficient to determine compliance, then no cert should be issued.

Signing certificates is what defines the architect during the building contract.

Under the classical RIAI contract, there is an employer and a contractor and there are checks and balances like site engineers, site architects and clerks of works. Clerks of works were going out of fashion when I was getting qualified and its seldom you will see one these days. The nearest thing is a project manager, but some of these are merely schedulers who do not have a broad grasp of building details and methods.

In the absence of the clerk of works, there is the Design Team.
The architect and structural engineer, mechanical and electrical engineer and quantity surveyor must fill the gap.
There is very little four competent professionals operating diligently at the top of their game would not be able to see.
They have powers to request further opening up works and carry out further detail inspections, even where the initial inspection may have been limited to "visual inspection only".

This sounds like a completely acceptable basis for undertaking something that ultimately has people's safety and lives at stake, provided there are appropriate standards and sanctions (which there are, from what you say). No different from other industries: medical, aviation, pharma, or indeed the example I used of normal product development of any one of hundreds of products (child car seats for example).

However the difficulty arises in the newer forms of building contract [Design Build and GCCC] and the situation where the developer is the builder AND the client.

I smell a conflict of interest.....

There the architect is not balancing fairness to a client/employer and a contractor in administering a classical RIAI contract - pessure comes from one side only to perform
Thus the side falling behind in the programme may be the same side that is paying the architect's fee AND demanding early release of certificates to benefit cashflow in the development company.

In such cases, the architect is tested to the limit.
However, his only logical response is to stick to his guns, because if he compromises once, his integrity is shattered and his authority is lost.
The architect must be prepared to walk away from a job if the client starts acting up and building beyond the permission or not in accordance with the terms of the fire safety certificate.


This has happened to me and I walked because it was the only response.
And yes, the client came back asking me to sort out the huge problems that developed in my absence.
I sorted them out to his reasonable satisfaction, but they were sorted on my terms, which were and are - do it by the book!

I have to say I totally agree, and part of the way we approach this is to ensure that we get what are called Schedule A Assurances from EVERYONE!

You may well do the right thing, and be prepared to walk away, but what's to stop someone else from not doing so?

This is the exact problem: conflicts of interest that rely on people doing the right thing. Offering them a get-out clause ("visual inspection") that facilitates developers walking from their responsibilities makes the whole idea of certification a nonsense. If the cert can't be relied on, what value does it have? I take that back: clearly the value it has is to facilitate developers from getting their sale, banks their customers and the council from getting their development levy. The only slight problem is that 10s or even 100s of people might just loose their lives, but hey, everyone was only doing what others do all the time...

We operate on the principle that if these boys realize they are going to have to offer a piece of paper with a senior person named as being an officer representing the company, this concentrates their mind.

As I said, sounds like a reasonable system to operate: the problem as you outline it is that it, or an equivalent, is not mandatory.

Don't place you faith in regulations or sanctions. Sanctions don't work with criminal contractors intent on undermining their architect. Sanctions cannot inspire integrity in negligent architects.

Understood: there will always be cases of failures.

However I think that given the current staffing levels and existing powers of the planning officers, building control officers and fire officers to attend, inspect and request drawings showing compliance, there are some very simple and cost effective ways to up people's game.

(A) Each Council and the Health and Safety Authority working together should immediately -

1. Draw up a list of all projects on site
2. Determine which professionals were involved in the Design of the Building
3. Ask for confirmation of which professionals are involved during the Building Process.
4. Where there are no professionals involved, request the submission of Building regulation Compliance Drawings.

This alone would set the cat amongst the pigeons and was a measure any Council could have done at any time during the Tiger.

(B) Each Planning Officer, Building Control Officer, Health and Safety Officer and Fire Officer should co-ordinate between them, at least one surprise site visit for every building under construction in their area of operation.
The current policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is operated even among planning officers on their way into work in the morning, which means they rely on people to report their neighbours.
It gives the impression that our public servants, those charged with ensuring that the built work is executed compliantly and safely, walk around with blinkers on in case they see anything amiss!

That's getting back to my point: we're good at introducing laws and regulations but useless at enforcing them. Presumably there's nothing stopping what you describe from happening, other than a lack of willingness to take responsibilities seriously?

(C) However nothing beats the Golden Rule of development, whether under the classical RIAI contract or newer Design Build or GCCC Contracts - "First, employ a good builder."


ONQ.

And how is the person in the street to determine that? Not by looking at any official documentation/compliance certs, that's for sure! Just ask the people at Priory Hall....

 

[onq]

And how is the person in the street to determine that? Not by looking at any official documentation/compliance certs, that's for sure! Just ask the people at Priory Hall....

We're on the same page here ang1170

[broken link removed]

5:24-7:12 seems to cover the substantive issues in this case.

This is where I believe the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland needs to step in.

It needs to set standards for its Members and lobby government for necessary legislation to make it mandatory for a design team to be appointed for site work.

Otherwise this won't get sorted for the benefit of the public.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

 

[Superman]

That's where I think the system is broken: if visual inspection is insufficient to determine compliance, then no cert should be issued.

No Certs. are issued. What are issued are Opinions on Compliance.
Either you have a system where someone takes full liability for everything (currently the developer does so) or you have a system based on negligence.
Under the current system, even if you require that all projects have a design team appointed and that they carry out standard services on a project (periodic inspections etc.), that service will still only be bound by the law on negligence.
They will not be taking responsibility for the manufacture of fire seals; ensuring that the hardcore does not contain pyrite; ensuring that all fire sealing is in place etc. - only for what a non-negligent professional would see in the circumstances.

If you want someone, other than the developer, to now take full liability for a building it should probably be an insurer or similar - allow them to employ architects or surveyors to carry out what investigations they wish (with the cost passed on to the buyer as necessary - so that the buyer determines the cost of insurance vs. the level of investigation/destruction required on the existing building). The insurer would be in a better place to calculate the cost of what it is you seem to be looking for - and is more likely to be around afterwards.

This is the exact problem: conflicts of interest that rely on people doing the right thing. Offering them a get-out clause ("visual inspection") that facilitates developers walking from their responsibilities makes the whole idea of certification a nonsense.

The developer isn't allowed to walk away from his responsibilities -he is liable in this case. Whether he will be able to fund this or not is a separate issue.

 

[Superman]

It needs to set standards for its Members and lobby government for necessary legislation to make it mandatory for a design team to be appointed for site work.

Otherwise this won't get sorted for the benefit of the public.

If a design team is mandatory (a protection of function), how many will be required - are a fire engineer and M&E engineer required for a domestic extensions? Should the architect be RIAI qualified/on the architects register only? Is the design team going to take full "fit for purpose" liability for the building?

 

[onq]

I think I see where you are coming from Superman, but merely saying it may be hard to do won't get it done.
Like any problem it can be broken down into a serious of component issues.

==================

Guidelines need to be developed for a range of building types and sizes.
Houses and extensions certainly need some input because the Self-Build market was 30-40% of the total even in the Tiger years and its largely unregulated.
Consider if we extend the fit-for-purpose comment to become a concept of "adequate advice required from design professionals and project management professionals".

I say "design" and "management" because those two strands apply to any building job, just as every business has its core business and its property portfolio.
Support this concept with the requirement that a minimum of one building professional is required for every job proceeding to site.

==================

This fitness for purpose theme is echoed in the Safety Health and Welfare Regulations, but its not properly instituted even there.
Designers are supposed to be competent to carry out their duties but no objective standard of competence is required by law.

The current requirement to Register architects in the Building Control Act 2007 is not a complete solution - it excludes many fine building professionals, while allowing in MRIAI's with building failures to their names.
But even if the standard was achieved across the board for Registered architects, the public (as in developers) wouldn't be protected from itself because the provision of architectural services isn't regulated,

==================

Back to the workability of it, and on smaller jobs one professional could encompass most of the requirements with minor inputs from others, but personally speaking I have never gone to site without a structural engineer, even on an extension.
Advice from a Fire Safety Consultant was sought in relation to a Small Shop change of use recently, and when I certified remedial works to houses in the Noughties, we had a barrage of Certs including both Structural and Mechanical & Electrical Engineers.

Oddly enough the presence of professionals doesn't multiply fees by a factor, more like a percentage and in some cases savings can occur, because you trade (for example) an architect waffling for a couple of days around an M&E issue or detail for a definitive comment from an experienced consultant.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

 

[Superman]

"adequate advice required from design professionals and project management professionals".

i.e. a negligence based professional system.
This means that the Opinions of Compliance will remain of the "visual inspection only" variety (which ang1170 seems to dislike) - though it will be based on a more comprehensive (but not complete) inspection system.

It also doesn't address the problem that while you have increased the potential marks from 1 (the developer) to 2 (the architect as well) or more, you still potentially face the problem that both can go out of business.

 

[Bronte]

Its on LOS because this is where the OP posted it.

If you think the thread metrits promotion to an above the line sub forum then use the report post facility to bring it to the attention of the mods.

Sorry I didn't think of doing it but have now done so. Hopefully we might get one of the residents from Priory Hall who may give a unique insight into the situation.

As an aside Onq has put so much information in the thread it's hard to now understand where it is going.

 

[ajapale]

At the request of several posters Ive moved this thread from LOS to Mortgages and buying and selling homes (this is the closest sub forum I could find for it).

At this stage if any poster who is following the thread would care to summarise it then that would be great!

aj
moderator

 

[onq]

Sorry I didn't think of doing it but have now done so. Hopefully we might get one of the residents from Priory Hall who may give a unique insight into the situation.

As an aside Onq has put so much information in the thread it's hard to now understand where it is going.

There are no simple solutions for any of this.
I'm trying to point a way forward out of the self-regulatory mess we're in.
I am proposing solutions and Superman is critiquing them from a professional and legal standpoint.

 

[Bronte]

I know you are Ong, it is just probably that this architecture stuff that you are so passionate about is not the most titillating to someone like me.

 

[Complainer]

This guy's posts on this topic are worth reading. He is sometimes a tad OTT, but he knows his stuff; http://www.cjwalsh.ie/2011/10/priory-hall-fire-engineering-protecting-societys-interests/

 

[onq]

Brief Summary -

The recent High Court action resulting in the relocation of all remaining Priory Hall Residents out of their homes into temporary accommodation on safety grounds has called into question the effectiveness of the current practice of self certification by professionals and contractors working in the building industry as well as minimal inspections by officers of local authorities.

=============================

Concerns have arisen because of -

- the alleged negligent or fraudulent certification of non-compliant developments by a registered architect
- the alleged use of the "visual inspection only" disclaimer by a registered architect to divert or blur issues of accountability and liability
- the manifest lack of competence and integrity in contractors who are required by law to build in compliance with the Building Regulations
- the alleged inclusion in multiple apartments of an inner room which was apparently removed by condition of the relevant Fire Safety Certificate being visible evidence of non-compliance
- the manifestly inadequate level of Local Authority Officer's inspections which currently stands at 10-15% of projects on site.


Cost effective solutions within the existing framework are being contemplated including -

- random checks by both professionals and local authority officials
- co-operation and sharing of information between the Councils and the Health and Safety Authority to determine which schemes have Building Professionals appointed for the duration of the building programme.
- where no building professional is appointed, the immediate request from the developer of full sets of building regulation compliance drawings by Building Control.
- pro-active briefing meetings with the Building Control Officer and Fire Office before commencement of each building project.
- the requirement for every contributor to the design or major building elements to offer certification.
- the recording of the work stages by photographs, including works that had to be re-done.


Robust new solutions are being contemplated including -

- the mandatory requirement for projects going to site to be regularly inspected and recorded by competent building professionals
- the mandatory requirement for local authority officials to undertake inspections of every job on site at least once during the building programme
- the rigorous policing of the professions by their respective representative bodies
- the taking of decisive, corrective action by representative bodies to protect the public when fraudulent or negligent behavior is discovered
- the exercise of powers by the representative bodies to investigate, restrict and/or strike from the register previously registered professionals whose misconduct warrants such censure to both send a message and protect the public.
- the establishment of a Register for Building Contractors to establish their competence to carry out compliant work in accordance with all legislation affecting Building Works in Ireland.

=============================

There is more commentary, but I think that sums up the main points.
Anyone care to add more feel free or follow up and I'll amend this post or perhaps one of the moderators may wish to do so.

Thanks for moving this AJ.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

 

[ang1170]

I know you are Ong, it is just probably that this architecture stuff that you are so passionate about is not the most titillating to someone like me.

The issues raised here are extremely serious. One thing is clear enough: if a fire had broken out at Priory Hall (or indeed did so tomorrow at some other location with similar issues) and 40 or 50 people lost their lives, something would probably be done about this. There is an opportunity here to change matters before rather than after the event.

It's ironic that this has happened on the Northside of Dublin: do people not remember or learn anything?

 

[onq]

This guy's posts on this topic are worth reading. He is sometimes a tad OTT, but he knows his stuff; http://www.cjwalsh.ie/2011/10/priory-hall-fire-engineering-protecting-societys-interests/

The implication in the blog above is that the construction of Priory Hall may be systemically non-compliant due to the lack of competence of the builders working in the Tiger years in general - a degree of speculation that I have no problems with in principle.

This is his point about Priory Hall.

BUT … it would be possible to achieve a Proper Level of Fire Safety in ‘Priory Hall’ … by installing a Fire Suppression System (sprinklers or mist) throughout the development. That’s what it will take !

I'm concerned about someone with his supposed level of competence stating that on a blog - becasue that's NOT ALL it will take!
Part of the problems with fire development in a perforated construction is the transmission of cold smoke and fumes to other occupancies, escape routes and sleeping occupancies.
If the development is not fully sealed against the passage of such gases, they can build up over time and cause health problems and even death through poisoning the air the occupants breath.

A sprinkler system is an add-on solution to symptoms.
It is not in my opinion the correct approach to deal with causes.
By itself it may be just another high-tech "visible" way of papering over the cracks.
Opening up, borescope inspection and sealing works may all be necessary to establish condition and achieve compliance.

What the blog above suggests, but never develops, is that may Irish Builders approached multi-storey buildings from a heritage of rural bungalow building.
Such builders, it is inferred, are simply not prepared to deal with the complexity and compliance levels required to construct such buildings competently.
The implication of this is the Contractors and/or Contracting Companies should be assessed as to their competence level and Registered accordingly.

I have amended the Summary Post above to reflect this.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

 

[Bronte]

Is there an easy way to print this thead, I cannot read it easily. I can't see any button that says print?

 

[elcato]

Is there an easy way to print this thead, I cannot read it easily. I can't see any button that says print?

Top right beside search button, select Thread Tools and click on Show Printable version. Get to the page you are interested in by clicking as normal in the bottom right. It's not great but is a bit more reader friendly.

 

[Superman]

Part of the problems with fire development in a perforated construction is the transmission of cold smoke and fumes to other occupancies, escape routes and sleeping occupancies.
If the development is not fully sealed against the passage of such gases, they can build up over time and cause health problems and even death through poisoning the air the occupants breath.

A sprinkler system is an add-on solution to symptoms.
It is not in my opinion the correct approach to deal with causes.
By itself it may be just another high-tech "visible" way of papering over the cracks.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sprinkler systems are installed often in conservation projects as part of Fire Engineering solutions which demonstrably surpass the equivalent of the TGD. "Death through poisoning the air" cannot happen if a Fire Engineering solution is correctly installed. "Health problems" are even less likely - it is not like fires are constantly going on in various parts of the building and the occupants getting smoke wafting into their faces as they walk by.

 

[onq]

Superman,

What I am saying is that unless the standard of construction and interstitial fire sealing of joints and penetrations is compliant, then merely adding a sprinkler system may not be adequate to address pre-fire conditions.

In the Prime Time interview both the resident and the Fire Inspector commented on the poor quality of the build. This is all that creates a surface seal. The interstitial penetrations were not looked at. Someone didn't want to put even a specimen hole in a wall to heck them.

I accept what you say in terms of addressing a fire. I am talking about pre-fire conditions which may be health and life threatening. Being overcome by smoke and fumes in the early stages of a fire development is a well known cause of death.

It greatly exercised one Building Control Office I know and respect and was one of the major investigative issues in two storey detached houses in an estate we investigated.

Spraying water on people who may apready be insensible or dying from asphyxiation doesn't even clear away the bad air that's killing them. It may create worse smoke in the short term as the fire components sputter and go out.

I would not therefore rest on the assumption that a sprinkler system is adequate where a sleeping occupancy is involved. What might do for offices in old buildings isn't good enough for apartments.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

 

[Superman]

I am talking about pre-fire conditions which may be health and life threatening. Being overcome by smoke and fumes in the early stages of a fire development is a well known cause of death.

Spraying water on people who may apready be insensible or dying from asphyxiation doesn't even clear away the bad air that's killing them. It may create worse smoke in the short term as the fire components sputter and go out.

I would not therefore rest on the assumption that a sprinkler system is adequate where a sleeping occupancy is involved. What might do for offices in old buildings isn't good enough for apartments.

The sprinkler system will prevent the fire from spreading/smoking if it is properly installed - it is not meant to do anything for smoke or clearing the air. The occupants will have a further protection most likely by having an L1 fire alarm system and fire alarm flashers etc.. I've been involved in retrofitting old buildings for near hospital conditions - it can be done.

 

[onq]

Perhaps you should be involved in the works on Priory Hall Superman.
Because it certainly needs someone with experience and competence to do it.

Not the certifying architect of record, who appears not to have noticed an entire ROOM.
Nor the builders who built it so badly in the first place and whom several residents appear to have no faith in.
I mean, is there - even NOW - a competent architect employed on the site to oversee, record and issue Opinions on the Remedial Works?

In relation to your comments above, I accept that you're offering these assurances in good faith.
However, only this past year I have heard horror stories about Fire Specialists going into institutional builders to retrofit seals on service ducts.
It all comes down to the integrity and competence of the people carrying out the work and we shouldn't be asked to rest on assurances - there should be a photographic record!

(summary amended to suit)

ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.