Building regs hinder green refurbs...

[Nemesis]

From BD :

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3113783&c=2

Building Regs hinder green refurbs, RIBA tells MPs
16 May 2008

By Rory Olcayto

Building Regulations are a “barrier” to the government’s carbon reduction targets, the RIBA has told a parliamentary inquiry into retrofitting commercial property.

Written evidence from the institute to Parliament’s all-party urban development group claimed Building Regs were a stumbling block to “greening” buildings such as shops, offices and warehouses because the rules delay and complicate such retrofitting by requiring planning permission.

The group, chaired by Labour MP David Betts and including former construction minister Nick Raynsford, heard from expert witnesses at its inaugural meeting on Monday. It is to report in July.

Speaking at the meeting, John Lewis Partnership’s energy and environment manager Bill Wright backed the RIBA’s call, claiming the regulations needed “tightening up” to make retrofitting with green technology easier and less costly.

The RIBA report stated: “The highly complex nature of Building Regulations is acting as a barrier to full compliance. [There is] confusion and ultimate non-compliance that results from Building Regulations Part L2A which dissuades the refurbishment of existing building stock where it significantly alters its appearance or character, meaning applications must go through the planning system.”

The report also called on the group to consider the Scottish government’s A Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy for Scotland, published last summer, which recommends that all owners of non-domestic buildings conduct a carbon and energy assessment and produce an upgrading programme.

Speaking after Monday’s meeting, the RIBA public affairs coordinator David Plaisant said it was up to the government to “incentivise the industry to act.

“We want to get more involved in greening existing commercial stock — it’s a key issue,” he said.

Local Authority Building Control director of technical services Barry Turner told BD: “It would be better if changes designed to combat climate change [were to] avoid planning altogether.”

Also at the meeting were Paul King of the UK Green Building Council; Allan Jones, chief executive of the London Climate Change Agency; David Vincent, director of the Carbon Trust ; and Hilary Reid Evans, head of sustainability initiatives at Quintain.

 

[Flyfisher]

As does LBC.

 

[Nemesis]

As do building regs for unlisted traditional buildings.

A free for all may not be good for buildings though.

 

[shelli]

The report also called on the group to consider the Scottish government’s A Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy for Scotland, published last summer, which recommends that all owners of non-domestic buildings conduct a carbon and energy assessment and produce an upgrading programme.

Speaking after Monday’s meeting, the RIBA public affairs coordinator David Plaisant said it was up to the government to “incentivise the industry to act.

:roll: - "incentivise" eh - well we all know what that means to policiticans - TAX ! we might as well be living in bladdy medieval England under tyrant king - chuh!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

[There is] confusion and ultimate non-compliance that results from Building Regulations Part L2A which dissuades the refurbishment of existing building stock where it significantly alters its appearance or character,

Except that approved document L2A is "Conservation of fuel and power in new buildings other than dwellings" so I don't see where issues of refurbishment are relevant.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, I can send any comments to David...

 

[Lime]

I'm pleased that there is some restraint placed upon owners of property when considering "greening" alterations.
What the government needs to incentivise is the making of "green" improvements from traditional materials rather than plastic, plastic and plastic.

 

[andrew gayton]

As does LBC.

example?

 

[Nemesis]

Meself, I reckon the continuing use, and the re-use, of a historic building is a pretty 'green' thing to do on its own.

As for the rest...

 

[sarahj]

That's why I'm living with an avocado bathroom suite - its in good nick, and seems criminal to rip it out before it wears out as no-one else would want it. And the bathroom's fully tiled with lilly pads........and a cork tiling floor (same as the kitchen). Being really green isn't glamorous at all! What's greener - a beautiful wood kitchen counter made from sustainable materials, or a free offcut of some laminated chipboard that would be going to the tip otherwise?

Sarah

 

[Flyfisher]

As does LBC.

example?

Well, when I raised the issue some time back a number of people (including another well-known CO on here) made it quite clear that solar panels on the roof of a GII+ property would be quite unacceptable. Not, I freely admit, an extensive survey of opinion but enough to put me off bothering to pursue the idea. Was it a mistake to give up so easily?

 

[Lime]

The expression "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" applies to most things green IMO.
As sarahj says, being green isn't glamorous at all and that is where most "green" people fail in their quest to save the planet, leave something for future generations and also feel less guilty.
Being green, as most of the general public understand it and governments gives succour to, is founded on and prefaced with continued consumption and growth but making a little less mess of the planet doing it.
i.e. In reality the planet still gets messed up but it takes a little longer meanwhile everyone feels a bit better.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, when I raised the issue some time back a number of people (including another well-known CO on here) made it quite clear that solar panels on the roof of a GII+ property would be quite unacceptable. Not, I freely admit, an extensive survey of opinion but enough to put me off bothering to pursue the idea. Was it a mistake to give up so easily?

A spot wrong I think. Give us the post...

As I keep saying - it's building by building, I'm surprised you haven't grasped that. Well, maybe I shouldn't be.

But are solar panels the only 'green' issue?

Do they have to be on a roof? Another poster had permission for them as free standing panels.

Which I am sure you recall.

Cue a whinge now about how the roof would be so much better... and how out of step all are except you.

Being green, as most of the general public understand it and governments gives succour to, is founded on and prefaced with continued consumption and growth but making a little less mess of the planet doing it.

Assertion. Evidence?

 

[Pford75]

I think that any set of rules & regulations (whether Building regs or LBC) will naturally dissuade some people from making 'green' changes to their buildings...just simply because of the need to fill forms, get plans etc.

Personally, I'm strongly against the wholesale switch to 'green' at the cost of all other things such as history, aesthetics etc. But I can see that LBC does perpetuate a situation where the 'average' period property takes more energy to keep warm.

I think it's less about specific opposition to 'green' measures....more the time, hassle and cost of the LBC process which will hinder the changes (not that I believe this is a bad thing).

 

[Gareth Hughes]

As does LBC.

example?

Well, when I raised the issue some time back a number of people (including another well-known CO on here) made it quite clear that solar panels on the roof of a GII+ property would be quite unacceptable. Not, I freely admit, an extensive survey of opinion but enough to put me off bothering to pursue the idea. Was it a mistake to give up so easily?

I can't find a post in which I "made it quite clear that solar panels on the roof of a GII+ property would be quite unacceptable." Nor can I find a post in which solar panels on a II* building are mentioned.

There is a post from you, however, (30 March 2007) which says:

Thanks for that clarification Gareth. You mention, though, that LBC has been granted where the solar panels are not visible, which seems fair enough.

 

[Nemesis]

I can't actually think the grade makes a great deal of difference either to what may or may not be granted LBC. It's what may be spoilt in the process, (and certainly aesthetics would come into it) which I would suggest would be a priority, how much of the character would be altered, rather than simply the listing grade. I would suggest there is no blanket ban on anything, although solar panels can be free standing and that's something I'm quite keen to explore.

http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9369&p=106909#p106909


Roof lights - we have some, rooflights are a historic solution to lighting a property, as indeed are the simple version which is glass sheet inserts or glass pantiles, but some are rather more suitable than others and some roofs certainly I would be very wary of inserting them. Far too many barn conversions are spoilt by thinking it's OK to punch a row of large holes through as this saves the building elevations from more window insertions.


This is Grade II:

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hardcastlecrags/w-hardcastlecrags-gibsonmill_project/w-hardcastlecrags-gibsonmill_project-sustainability.htm


http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?pid=1&id=423306


I think the main problem is building regs, at least as applied by some BCO's. Cement floors with plastic membranes, DPC's, and having to dry line buildings which were intended to 'breathe', alongside DG and then the introduction of trickle vents, are all things which can cause problems for traditional buildings owners who don't see the need for these things.

 

[Pford75]

Agree with much of what you say...and the mill you linked to is impressive (although perhaps beyond the financial reach of your average cottage).

Cement floors with plastic membranes, DPC's, and having to dry line buildings which were intended to 'breathe', alongside DG and then the introduction of trickle vents

...but how do any of these things hinder 'green' refurbs?

 

[Nemesis]

Maybe 'green' isn't the appropriate term. Suitable is maybe the appropriate term. Or sustainable. However, the apparent definition from the (rather muddled...) report in the original post is the one I was thinking of.

They may be damaging to the way the building functions, and in the long term be not either cost effective or good for the health of the building. Materials and methods which have been proven not to cause long term damage may, in the end, possibly be better than some so-called 'green' solutions. I'm less than convinced by dry lining being a universal cause for joy, nor indeed DG and uPVC.

 

[Pford75]

At last! Something which you and I agree wholeheartedly on.

My concern is that in the mindless rush towards all things 'green' (however defined), some will try to use this as an excuse for inappropriate, insensitive and potentially damaging alterations (all in the name of 'saving the planet'). Some building regs are already nonsense in certain situations (eg. energy loss in glazing). Mostly, it seems that at present these can be navigated with the help of the CO and some education of the building control team.....but I wonder how longer before the balance of power starts to shift

 

[Nemesis]

The problem is, many buildings of historic interest and traditional construction are NOT listed.

Therefore the CO has little sway, and the BCO can become mighty.