I wonder if it has issued a Supreme Court ruling to clarify the scope of the LOE as to what is meant by "building" for purposes of implementation of the LOE own (need project, participating agents ,...) and Technical Code "Building" (when it comes to technical aspects).
I would also like to know if, once repealed by the large CTE Most of the previous legislation, that legislation would be regulated according to what the LOE, is not considered "building."
Pere-Joan Torrent Riberto. Advocate
1. I know of no Supreme Court ruling to clarify the scope of the LOE as to what is understood by construction. I do not think there is another way to go to Articles 2 and 3 of the LOE to know the scope of the LOE and hence of the Technical Building Code.
Pere-Joan Torrent Riberto. Advocate
1. I know of no Supreme Court ruling to clarify the scope of the LOE as to what is understood by construction. I do not think there is another way to go to Articles 2 and 3 of the LOE to know the scope of the LOE and hence of the Technical Building Code.
2. The CTE gives no definition of what is considered a building or a building. Part of the basis that everyone agrees and knows that is a building.
3. For its part, the LOE when defining "building process" falls into vice or defect of tautology, that is to give a definition defined. That tells us that the building process is to build a permanent building, public or private, whose primary use is ... a) ... b) ... c) or any application.
4. Given this lack of precision of legal standards, we have no choice but to go to the English Language Dictionary lal of the SAR, which tells us: BUILDING (Latin aedificium): work or factory built for habitation or for similar uses, such as home, church, theater, etc.. Dictionaries in other Romance languages \u200b\u200bof our country, come to the same thing.
5. All works that is not considered building according to the LOE, are governed by specific technical rules that exist on that type of work if it exists, such as highways, roads, ports, dams, infrastructure works, parks , garden, electrical, etc ... If it is a work that has no specific technical regulations, shall be constructed in accordance with technical standards that provide adequate security for use, as the science of construction applicable to each case.
Anyway, what worries me most municipal coaching regarding what should be regarded as "building" is anything that relates to the entries b) and c) of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the LOE because I understand that the definitions are made for works that are not new plant are out of consideration of "building" many works, which, consequently, neither should apply to the LOE, nor the Code Technical Building or rules which have governed. A few examples: * The replacement
a whole floor of a residential building, including the cast, to be redistributed in a different number of homes while continuing to use.
* The installation of an elevator in a building including demolition and alterations to the staircase.
* Reform or complete installation of any commercial premises belonging to a residential building (ie, whose characteristic use is residential).
These works are not works of "building" under Article 2.2.b) of the LOE do not alter the architectural configuration of the buildings to which they belong and that:
- not an intervention total (what's that ?)
- not produce a substantial variation (What is this?) Outside the general composition, or the volumes or the entire structural system.
- Do not aim at changing the characteristic use of the building (what is this?).
The direct consequence is derived from reading the LOE be made that these works, despite their clear impact on structural safety, fire protection, use, or accessibility ... not need technical project or agents involved in them, nor would they meet technical rules since the CTE has repealed almost all of the above.
Is this correct? Nobody has raised this circumstance? Has anyone used this way when in the processing of the relevant licenses have been required for these works to comply with certain requirements under the CTE or the intervention of a particular product?
Pere-Joan Torrent Riberto. Advocate
1. The commentator is right that the wording of Article 2.2.b) ic) of the Law on Building could be interpreted in the sense that it has. But the reality is usually not done, and I think that an interpretation in this sense would not be accepted by case law.
Pere-Joan Torrent Riberto. Advocate
1. The commentator is right that the wording of Article 2.2.b) ic) of the Law on Building could be interpreted in the sense that it has. But the reality is usually not done, and I think that an interpretation in this sense would not be accepted by case law.
2. The 3 examples of works that require project relates undoubtedly, because they are major works require planning permission and that no municipality without a project grant signed by a competent technician. The 1 st piece of the speaker (replacement of an entire floor of an apartment building) requires a technical project, and forcibly signed by an architect, being an exclusive competence of architects. The 2 work requires a technical project frozen, which may be signed by various technicians, by use of the building where the lift is installed qual. Of course if it is a building for one of the six purposes only architects, project must be signed by an architect. If you're a commercial or industrial building project may be signed by competent engineers. But inevitably the installation of an elevator requires a technical project. On the 3 rd work (reform or complete installation of a shop) is not easy to decide because it works very indeterminate.
3. Leaving aside the ambiguity of Article 2 of the LOE, we refer to Article 2 of the CTE which has a different tone in his writing. Start by saying that the CTE should apply to all works that require a municipal license, under the terms determined by the LOE. And paragraph 3 of Article 2 includes the extension works, modification, alteration or rehabilitation without using the concepts prescribed in Article 2 of the LOE.
4. As regards the last two paragraphs of explanation, my view is that these works require technical project, and other agents of the building that provides for the LOE. And I know of cases where the owner of a work of this nature need not have alleged the project, but may have existed. And it would seem foolhardy to give a municipality licenses for such works without a project signed by a competent technician, and without proper site management and direction of execution of the work, if this is appropriate. As regards the implementation of the CTE, it will be required, with the exceptions that the CTE itself for change and reform works.
0 comments:
Post a Comment