Part L, HIPs, Energy Performance Certificates...recognise a pattern?

Last month it published a consultation document, The Future of Building Control, which sets out some proposed changes. This followed on from a paper of the same name published in March 2007 and a report – Blueprint for a Green Economy – by Conservative MP John Gummer and environmentalist Zac Goldsmith. Both papers were very critical of the current Building Control system: the DCLG suggested self certification as a possible way forward, while Gummer and Goldsmith recommended that Building Control be scrapped altogether.

While everyone working in Building Control appreciates the system is not perfect, the government could look closer to home to find the source of many problems. Much of the recent criticism of the Building Control community stems from accusations that it has failed to properly police the 2006 revisions to Approved Document L (Part L) of the Building Regulations. Let me jog a few memories.

What is happening with the proposed introduction of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) is so reminiscent of what happened two years ago, with the obvious conclusion that no lessons whatsoever have been learnt. The late issue of final guidance on EPCs and a lack of trained assessors has forced the government to push back its deadline of 6 April by six months for certificates for commercial buildings with a floor area greater than 10,000m². This follows the introduction of Home Information Packs, which was also delayed last summer due to a lack of trained surveyors.

In hindsight, the introduction of Part L should also have been delayed due to a lack of trained surveyors. In April 2006, final versions of the new Part L were introduced just hours before coming into effect. SBEM and SAP 2005 software could not produce the calculations needed to show compliance and thousands of Building Control surveyors were left waiting for training organisations to get their heads round the new requirements before they could receive tuition.

From a position of easily being able to check the requirements of the old Part L through elemental specification prior to April 2006, Building Control bodies suddenly began to receive unfamiliar calculations from both approved assessors and untrained individuals.

Could calculations from trained assessors be trusted? It seemed not, as the trade press swelled with stories of individuals boasting that through SBEM, they could make practically anything comply with a few tweaks here and there. How could the compliance of calculations prepared by untrained individuals be assured? By training Building Control surveyors to become qualified assessors, which means they are spending more time checking the energy efficiency calculations than they are assessing the whole application. Have costs for this extra work been factored into Building Control charges? No.

It’s been two years since the introduction of Part L and only now is the construction industry beginning to come to terms with its contents. The eventual introduction of EPCs should at least bring to an end to the submission of energy efficiency calculations from ‘non-competent persons’, but what next? As the quest for zero-carbon buildings moves on apace, will Building Control bodies be left in the same sorry mess every time a new guidance document is released?

Why not ensure that rigorous field trials of new requirements are introduced well in advance of planned amendments? For example, in terms of fire safety guidance, Draft for Development (DD) 9999, soon to replace BS 5588, has been available for use in parallel with the current British Standard for a number of years. Surely lessons can be learnt here? Instead of advocating self certification through individuals directly employed by organisations carrying out building work, the DCLG needs to give Building Control bodies the tools required to do the work it wants them to do. The new consultation at last seems to be a positive step forward in this respect.

Instead of advocating the termination of Building Control, Messrs Gummer and Goldsmith should visit some local authority and private sector offices around the UK and examine application files to see how many thousands of defective original submissions have been turned into safe, efficient and accessible buildings.