There is much to welcome in the Building Regulations draft approved documents – mandatory pressure testing, and fresh methods of demonstrating compliance, with design standards based upon target CO2 emissions rates.

However, it’s what’s missing that is of interest.

So much was promised; a step-change in the energy performance of our existing buildings, better compliance enforcement, a clear statement of intent associated with building energy labelling and plant inspection, and the requirements associated with the training and accreditation of independent experts. Yet the draft approved documents are silent on these key issues.

Of particular concern is the postponement of proposals to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes. The logic in the 2004 consultation document seemed compelling – if the living space of a dwelling was to be extended (and hence the carbon footprint increased) then the builder or householder would be obliged to install cost-effective energy-efficiency measures in the existing part of the dwelling. Widely supported by those who were consulted, the measure has been shelved, with the ODPM proposing to undertake yet more consultation. If the proposal is eventually abandoned, this would be a huge missed opportunity to improve, over time, the energy performance of the UK’s existing housing stock.

Most observers are surprised that conservatories of less than 30 m2 are excluded from the requirements. It was widely anticipated that government would tighten up on poorly designed and constructed conservatories. This exclusion will result in a higher requirement for heating and will further increase the sales of air-conditioning systems, to cope with summertime overheating.

Another key concern is the lack of clarity over who will be deemed to be a “suitably qualified person” to verify compliance at design and in undertaking pressure testing. It appears that it will be left to the judgement of Building Control bodies to decide who is competent. Since there is no clear definition of a suitably qualified person and no specific requirements over training, qualifications or the need to operate within an approved quality assurance framework, this is highly unlikely to deliver the improvements.

Finally, and of critical importance, is the absence of any clear statement associated with key elements of the European Union Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The EPBD is due to be brought in in less than four months and professional institutions and trade associations are desperate to know how the provisions on building energy certification and plant inspection are to be implemented. Despite specific recommendations on the training and accreditation of independent experts to deliver the EPBD, the final decisions are still awaited.

This prevarication seems to be flying in the face of demand. At a recent conference at BRE, environmental managers from BT and John Lewis called for tighter regulations to prevent companies that set themselves tough environmental targets being put at a commercial disadvantage. Government officials’ response was that some of these measures would be considered “unwarranted intervention in the market”. This seems odd, particularly given the prime minister’s call at the G8 summit for “urgent action to move towards a low-carbon economy”.