Building control on U values

[Morgandeacy63]

Hello everyone,

Very glad I found this site it's helped me with most issues I've come across during the start of our renovation of our 1800's property.

My building controll officer has requested that both my floor and walls obtain a u-value of 0.18, the floor wasn't much an issue as i was able to dig down an extra 150mm to allow for more recycled glass foam aggregate. However following a quick online calculator if i were to use even 120mm of woodfibre insulation I'd still only get a value of 0.28, surely they must recognise that an old property without a cavity isn't as easy to reach these levels.

Has anyone had a similar issue? Obviously I'd like to loose a little space inside as possible.

Thank you

 

[Cubist]

Why is your BCO requiring the property to achieve this U value? Is this a genuine mandate or merely a desire on his/her part?

 

[jamest]

You BC officer is a numpty, but then maybe they are all numpties.

My understanding of the regulations is that newbuilds (including extensions) require walls to have a U value of no more than 0.18. Refurbishments of older solid walled buildings need only achieve 0.3 (and even that has leway)

See this link

Approved Document L - England

Find out more about the Part L Building Regulations for England.

www.kingspan.com

 

[Morgandeacy63]

Yes my understanding was that this would be the case, they only sent a very brief text message requesting 0.18 for both and I thought I'd seek advice on here before challenging. Very much appreciate the speedy reply both.

 

[paulc]

Yes my understanding was that this would be the case, they only sent a very brief text message requesting 0.18 for both and I thought I'd seek advice on here before challenging. Very much appreciate the speedy reply both.

Challenge it on the grounds that a refurbishment only requires a lower value, and also that the costs exceed what could reasonably be saved on heating over a 15 year period.
I've fitted internal wall insulation to some of the rooms here, and quite frankly, the savings have been minimal. New windows and plugging all those nasty cold draughts have delivered a greater return. Having cut gas consumption from 8000kWh per year down to around 3500kWh, it is going to take a lot longer than 15 years to recover the cost (based on current gas prices). That said, quality of life and comfort levels have improved dramatically which is something that you can't put a value on.

 

[Flyfisher]

You BC officer is a numpty, but then maybe they are all numpties.

Harsh, but understandable.

I think the problem is that most BCOs are trained only on the current regs and how they apply to modern buildings, which is fair enough as far as it goes but it just doesn't go far enough when it comes to buildings that pre-date the regulations by hundreds of years. Some BCOs understand this but others don't and period property owners can find themselves in a mismatched 'power battle' with a jobsworth unwilling to take responsibility for a decision about a non-standard building. I was once told by a BCO that he wouldn't do a final sign-off until all the exposed beams were covered with plasterboard because of the fire risk. When I got up off the floor after falling about laughing, I suggested he go back to his office and have a quiet word with our conservation officer. A few days later I received all the final BC paperwork duly signed off.

Paulc above is spot on - you can, and should, challenge the decision. Base it on good reasons that give the BCO a sensible justification for relaxing the strict BC regulations and they'll likely agree.

 

[jamest]

Harsh? You're probably right, but if what you read in the newspapers is to be believed, there is one hell of lot of corruption going on with BC officers signing off on new builds they've never looked at and are demonstrably not up to snuff. It's a national scandal.

You'd also think that they would take the time to actually be familiar with the regulations that they're supposed to be enforcing. To my mind, Part L is clear and it doesn't take long to read the relevant sections. I really don't think there's an excuse. In this case, I suppose the BCO might just have send off a standard reply without really thinking it through, but the result is unnecessary angst and time wasting for the home owner - not really acceptable.

If it were me, I would do it myself, not inform BC and live in the property for more than 10 years. That way, I'm off the hook for any failure to meet the regs.

Anyway, rant over!

 

[Flyfisher]

If it were me, I would do it myself, not inform BC and live in the property for more than 10 years. That way, I'm off the hook for any failure to meet the regs.

Funny you should say that . . .

 

[Lacan07]

Hello everyone,

Very glad I found this site it's helped me with most issues I've come across during the start of our renovation of our 1800's property.

My building controll officer has requested that both my floor and walls obtain a u-value of 0.18, the floor wasn't much an issue as i was able to dig down an extra 150mm to allow for more recycled glass foam aggregate. However following a quick online calculator if i were to use even 120mm of woodfibre insulation I'd still only get a value of 0.28, surely they must recognise that an old property without a cavity isn't as easy to reach these levels.

Has anyone had a similar issue? Obviously I'd like to loose a little space inside as possible.

Thank you

Tell them to f**k off. Unless you've removed a certain percentage of plaster from the walls they can't insist you do anything, and even then I'd argue the toss with them. Ask them what they know about old houses, I guarantee it'll be nothing, my BC haven't got a clue. As long as you've got a coherent argument that makes logical and factual sense they'll struggle to pin you down. The only way to achieve modern U values is with the use of rigid foam board, and whilst it has its uses in an old house (warm roof insulations) it shouldn't be anywhere near a ground floor solid brick wall.

 

[aockenden]

Our building control chap (who we only ever contact regarding our extension, for our old house they can sod off) once told me lime was only good for old castles. He also took 4 months to respond to my wife’s multiple emails asking for the u-value requirements for our extension, saying that he hadn’t figured out how to scan the document and therefore couldn’t email it to us. He also told me I should burn the pile of old tires on our property instead of using them to build a soak away as burying them underground would be environmentally unsound…

 

[Flyfisher]

He also told me I should burn the pile of old tires on our property instead of using them to build a soak away as burying them underground would be environmentally unsound…

Oh to have got that in writing . . .

 

[Bash_Bash]

This is a very interesting thread - so thanks to all for contributing. We are going through a refurb, much of which I don't think requires BC sign off, so I am trying to break it down into component parts for sign off, and it is proving to be a challenge. They require a mass of paperwork when all I really want to do is have a chat to negotiate the sensible middle ground between 'the book' and 'listed building reality'. Thoughts? Is there a handrail for these discussion about what you must have BC sign-off for, other than the big docs: Approved Doc L etc; and a simpler route through this? Thanks in advance.