Exhausting our energy

There is no question that tougher Building Regulations are helping industry make huge strides towards cutting carbon emissions. When improved energy standards come into force next year it means industry will have reduced CO2 from new buildings by 40% since 2002. The figure is commendable and will give the UK a fighting chance of meeting its Kyoto targets – but there are concerns that energy standards are improving too quickly for the industry and government to implement properly.

The industry usually has six months to absorb the details of a new Building Regulation before it is implemented. However, the new Part L has set an unfortunate precedent. Even though it is due to come into force in less than six months, and even though it will have a lasting effect on the construction industry, there is a worrying amount of information and guidance still to be finalised.

The delay is in part caused by the government’s need to bring forward the implementation of Part L by two years in order to comply with the European Union’s upcoming Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This requires that buildings be energy-rated using a whole-building calculation method by January 2006, and Part L was overhauled in order to measure buildings in the same way.

The move to a whole building calculation method is complex, as the energy rating has to take account of every element affecting energy use. The combination of a shorter timetable and complicated energy calculations has led to a delay in the publication of final documents. In total there were 21 reference documents still being worked on or revised. The most glaring omissions is a national calculation methodology for non-dwellings, which designers will have to use to work out whether their buildings meet the energy requirements laid out in the new rules.

The delay in producing final approved documents is worrying for many in the industry - including John Tebbit, director of industry affairs at the Construction Products Association. Of particular concern is the calculation tool for non-dwellings known as the “simplified building energy method”, which is still being beta-tested. “There’s nothing out yet,” says Tebbit. “But it’s meant to be come into force in April. How? It will take time to implement and train people.”

Until the calculation tool is finalised, the uncertainty will continue. Tebbit says manufacturers do not know yet how sensitive the calculation tool will be for certain elements of the building, which means they won’t know whether their products will be penalised or favoured in the whole-building calculation. “You may be able to build a fabric to 2002 standards and strap a solar panel on the roof – but nobody knows,” says Tebbit. “It’s a nightmare for designers and manufacturers.”

Without having the final non-domestic methodology in place, architects risk drawing up designs that don’t comply with new Part L. They will have to recheck their drawings when the final documents appear and hope that no fundamental alterations have to be made. Ken Cowdery, a director at developer Macdonald Egan, says his firm is having to commit time and resources to evaluating the merits of low energy systems that may or may not work with Part L.

There is some good news from the ODPM. The final version of SAP 2005 – the recommended calculation tool for dwellings – was finalised last week, so housebuilders can now start calculating the energy performance of their designs.

Andy Senatore, group technical manager at Countryside, says the delay in the publication of SAP 2005 made life difficult: “The late arrival of approved documents is really hindering us.” He says that until SAP 2005 appeared he was unable to send his staff for training. “It’s not leaving us very much time. By the time the person is qualified it only gives us three months before the regulation appears, which is unusual.”

The tool is meant to come into force in April. How? It’ll take time to implement and train people

John Tebbit, director of industry affairs, Construction Products Association

Senatore says the government is being unreasonable in asking housebuilders too absorb so much in such a short period of time. “It’s not easy – it’s complicated, and they’re relying on us to make it work. They should have given us a longer lead-in time.”

Even with the methodologies in place, the complexity of the regulation means that many architects and designers will need outside help. “Consultation costs could be high,” says Michelle Barkley, technical director at architect Chapman Taylor. “We will have to employ a services engineer to ensure compliance even for feasibility studies for projects that may never get built.”

The National Federation of Builders says the complexity of Part L will have a disproportionate affect on small builders. Chief executive Barry Stephens says that the complexity of the SAP 2005 calculation method could force small builders to leave the industry. “Small housebuilders have got little chance of complying unless they are helped by a new industry of calculation experts. If the service is sold at a vast expense they may just decide to pack up in disgust.”

There are also concerns about pressure testing, which the government has said will be mandatory if no suitable self-certification schemes are established. Tanya Ross, a design manager at Buro Happold, says architects are equally horrified by pressure testing and the idea of making calculations before and after construction. She adds that there is a question of who will be responsibility if pressure tests fail on completed buildings that comply with Part L. “Who’s the finger going to be pointing at? Clients will be asking for advice and at the moment there is no definitive answer,” she says.

The government has also yet to announce a “competent person scheme” that will determine who can carry out pressure tests. Ross says the uncertainty over costs and who will be counted as competent is leading to anxiety among her peers.

The government has a golden opportunity to remove the uncertainty over energy regulation in the future. Details of the new National Code for Sustainable Buildings is expected from the ODPM next month. It will go beyond Building Regulations and set sustainable standards in energy, water use, waste and the use of materials.

The code has the opportunity to clarify exactly what is required in future energy regulations, which would give industry and building control enough time to prepare for the future. Such a policy would ensure a smooth transition between regulations and placate an industry that is being irritated by haphazard regulation. As Tebbit says, “The industry doesn’t mind regulation change, but it has to be done in a measured way.”

The campaign’s latest supporters …

Bob White, chief executive, Constructing Excellence

As agreed within the industry, enforcement, timing of issues and overlap with other initiatives are just some of the problems surrounding regulations. But perhaps the biggest issue is the provision of predictable and up-to-date information on regulations, design codes, standards and guides. Much of this vital work has been carried out in the past by research organisations such as BRE and BSRIA, and has usually been co-funded by industry and government. As government funding is withdrawn, and the organisations focus on being commercially viable, the availability of vital knowledge for our industry will become scarcer. Consequently one of the few regular opportunities for industry to be informed of, and involved in, innovation will have disappeared.

David Mitchell, technical head, Home Builders Federation

The regulatory system in this country is seriously hindering the industry’s ability to produce the number of houses that the government would like.

There needs to be fewer regulations and they need to be less prescriptive.

The complexity of regulations means that non-compliance becomes a

serious danger as developers and local authority building control fail to fully understand them.

They also need to be in the right arena. What are clearly Building Regulations are appearing as conditions in the planning arena. This process is what I call “regulations via the back door” – which further clogs the system and slows up approvals.