Are these regulations really progress?

One advantage of getting older is that you feel able to complain about the annoying things which progress produces. Clingfilm and sticky back plastic (both now too thin and too strong and more difficult to use). Then there are shrink-wrapped products from CDs and food to tools that can only be unwrapped using some form of sharp implement (teeth no longer sufficient, not through age alone).

And now one of the major QS sports of “knock the architect” is no fun anymore. Am I getting soft as well?

If you think that I am, take a blank sheet and try to design a building that complies with all the present legislation.

The current crop of building regulations is a mess. Fire regulations are at odds with sound regulations, which are at odds with thermal insulation regulations, and so on. This is becoming troublesome and detrimental to the process of producing effective buildings.

Surveyors doing dilapidation and condition surveys often report faults within the fabric of the buildings which are the direct result of a lack of ventilation and yet the regulatory bodies are heading down the pressure testing road, with fleets of large vacuum cleaners on wheels soon being required nationwide to test compliance.

Sick building syndrome and increasing cases of asthma in the population is often worsened by a lack of ventilation and over-insulated and heated buildings. M&E costs as a proportion of development cost continue to rise, with scant regard to the individual’s often-strong desire to open a window and mess up the fine balance required for the design to function correctly.

Dry rot and other fungi love the conditions we are currently demanding. Are any of these green buildings performing as specified?

The traditional way to counter these problems was to design and build in materials that attempted to keep out the water, but enabled the structure to breath if they failed. Fully seasoned timbers and sizing with some allowance for redundancy also enabled the building stock to contribute to demand, over many years (in keeping with the “long life - loose fit” sentiment of the RIBA in the 1970s).

Dry rot and other fungi love the conditions we are currently demanding

Obviously it is sensible to produce buildings that cope with the current proliferation of other peoples’ noise, such as televisions, annoying ring tones and domestics.

New methods of construction need to replace the traditional tried and tested methods using the solid mass of stone/blockwork and further enhance the buildings resistance against the increasing onslaught.

My office building, built in 1734, contains spiral stairs in stone and timber. It has been used for domestic, retail, commercial purposes during it’s long life and was considered appropriate at each stage with the minimum of alterations to the fabric, all of which score well under modern criteria such as embodied energy and sustainability (local slate roof/rubble stone walls and softwood sliding sash windows).

However, it would not have been built today, as it fails to comply with DDA and several other regulations. Its grade II listed building status and general townscape contribution to the architecture of this “gem” town would have been lost for the enjoyment of our descendants.

The ODPM’s requirement for low-cost housing with a blanket endorsement of MMC without commissioning adequate trial schemes first is producing potential problems for the future (think school buildings of the 1960s). Well intentioned, yes; co-ordinated and genuinely green, probably not.

Spending money wisely, when we get the chance, is what the QS profession is good at. We must have our say.

Robin Hayward is managing director of Hayward Associates (Cumbria)