Building Regs victims sought...

[Gervase]

Some of you may remember a little local difficulty I encountered in the summer, detailed here.
Anyway, a ball has been set rolling, a gauntlet thrown down and a metaphor mixed.
I delivered an address to the annual conference of the Building Limes Forum on the subject at the weekend, and the upshot was that this is something that needs concerted action by all the groups potentially affected with, if necessary, a legal challenge to set a precedent to protect some four million buildings potentially at risk*.
But what we particularly need are case histories - examples since the new Part L regs became 'live' in April of where people anxious to restore traditional buildings with tradition materials or techniques have met with opposition from building control officers.
If anyone has encountered any problems, please let me know - the email address is below this posting. The more examples of unsympathetic interpretation we can find, the stronger we can make our case - and the safer the future for traditional buildings everywhere.

*those buildings that aren't listed, in conservation areas or scheduled national monuments, and which are thus not exempted from the worst aspects of the new Part L regulations.

 

[Moo]

- and why not write to Prince Charles? The more he knows about these things the better.

 

[Penners]

Gervase

While I truly applaud your willingness to take up the cudgel, bang the gong and beard the lion, do you think that you stand any chance at all of being able to introduce a system that allows Part L to be non-compulsory for unlisted buildings? If the building isn't listed, who is to make the highly subjective judgement as to whether Part L (or aspects of Part L) can be waived or not?

I have long felt that the application of all building regs to listed buildings should be subject to approval or veto by Conservation Officers (yes, I know - people have been beheaded for less controversial views) but where a CO is not involved, I can't see how on earth you could create a workable system of checks and balances.

I'm sorry to sound so negative about such a laudable aim, but the pragmatist in me wonders whether it's worth your while applying your efforts to such an unwinnable battle.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't think that it is unwinnable, given the amount that is wasted each year on worthless damp proofing and cement pointing and render which is damaging. Sealing up breathing buildings in the way that now has to be done is barmy.

Proper methods of treating older properties need to be used for the health of buildings AND their occupants.

 

[Gervase]

Aha, but building regs already are non compulsory, in that the Approved Documents (including Part L) are merely interpretations of statute and are suggestions, rather like the influential PPG15 (which owners of period properties rightly know and love).
The Approved Documents as published form what is best seen as the 'first tier' of guidance. The government itself has acknowledged that a second tier of advice, tailored to specific needs, is required, and part of the purpose of my tub-thumping is to establish that second tier (much as English Heritage did with its excellent Building Regulations and Historic Buildings in response to the old Part L in 2004).
At the moment the problem is that the only 'official' source of guidance that building control officers (and builders and householders) can turn to are the Approved Documents themselves.
If challenges can be mounted to decisions which are manifestly destructive to the cultural worth of buildings, while at the same time documents can be drawn up to protect that worth, then there is no reason why Part L, Part F and all the rest of the current building regs can't work. The whole point is that they're not set in stone - they're merely guidelines, and we need to remind BCOs, builders and householders of that fact and encourage flexibility, both by legally challenging some interpretations and offering our own alternatives.
As such I don't believe it's unwinnable (and it's a view shared by a number of people far more knowledgeable than me). To win, however, we need to document some case histories - hence the appeal.

 

[biffvernon]

Very true. The law is really very limited - just the paragraph printed in green that goes:

L1 Reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings by:
a limiting heat gains and losses:
i. through thermal elements and other parts of the building fabric...

What we have to do, to meet the legal requirement and save the species, is to conserve fuel and power in our leaky old sieves that pass for houses. We don't have to get rid of lime plaster and wobbly old glass but we do have to find, and demonstrate, other means of conserving fuel and power whilst also conserving our cultural heritage. It really shouldn't be so very difficult.

 

[Penners]

As you will appreciate, I'm playing devil's advocate here. And all of you have far more knowledge of this topic than I. But I'm still concerned that - however much the regs may actually be for guidance only - they inevitably become regarded as hard-and-fast rules, because there isn't the time nor the administrative machinery to do otherwise.

BCO's are very overworked. For this reason, I suspect that there is a great temptation for them simply to go "by the book", and regard the regulations as mandatory. It's quicker and more clear-cut. Once you start to introduce the element of subjective interpretation, then by definition you increase the amount of time it will take to reach a decision. And it's time that BCO's simply don't have.

To add a second tier of guidance must surely imply an increase in administrative machinery - and that increases local authority costs, leading to higher Council Taxes. Just wait for the howls of protest from the public on that one!

If you really feel that you can make a difference, Gervase, then you'll be doing a huge service to our archiectural heritage. So I earnestly hope that you're right. Meanwhile, please forgive my pessimism.

 

[Gervase]

Pessimism forgiven!
And playing devil's advocate is not bad thing, for the more holes that can be picked in the case before it goes to meet the oppostion, the better.
The intention is to make 'going by the book' simpler, by having clear guidance for BCOs.
At the moment, the regs are drafted to take into account a typical modern house, with cavity walls, membrane damp-proofing and modern windows.
What's needed is a set of guidelines to take into account buildings which don't fit that mould but which aren't protected by listing etc.
And there are a lot of them - A quarter of our housing stock was built before 1914, and around four million homes in the UK are 'traditional', with solid walls and no DPM.
As the new regs are supposed to apply on a 'whole house' basis, lowering the carbon footprint for the building as a whole, this is clearly a case where older buildings can be protected - you simply need to stipulate that insulation needs to be thicker, boilers more efficient and the like. As older buildings typically have a much lower square footage of window space than new, this is another area where the regs can be interpreted more sensibly.
A second tier of guidance is what the government is actively seeking at the moment. The trouble is, it's being sought from the cement industry, the makers of uPVC windows and large-scale builders and developers. They have a vested interest in the new over the old.
What's needed is a second tier of officially-sanctioned and objective guidance from those who actually know about older buildings. That would not add to the workload of BCOs - in fact it would reduce it, because the guidance would be there for them to apply, rather than having to be interpreted from new-build standards to apply to older buildings. At the moment, there's nowhere a BCO can go quickly to find the U-value of a three-foot thick stone wall with three-coat haired lime plaster, for example. Thus he'll insist that the wall be treated to comply with a known standard - which usually means dry-lining and either Celotex or the dubious Tri-iso Super 9 multifoil.

Another problem is that the regs at present don't take into account emobodied energy. To manufacture the Celotex and Kingspan needed to make older buildings comply would account for far more carbon than lime plaster, older softwoods and other parts of the existing fabric - but that's probably one for when the Approved Docs are next redrafted!

 

[Penners]

At the moment, the regs are drafted to take into account a typical modern house, with cavity walls, membrane damp-proofing and modern windows.

And therein lies the nub of my worry. I'm convinced that the reason for the narrowness of the existing regs lies in the infinite variety of traditional buildings. This presents guidance drafters with a problem of such mammoth complexity that they just cop out, and base their regulations on a Mk 1, bog standard, Acacia Avenue, British house.

Any departure from this "standard" immediately leads you into a quagmire, in which you virtually have to write a different set of rules for every traditional building in the land. I know that's something of an overstatement, but it conveys my point.

I'll stop sounding like a cracked record now, Gervase, because I'm at risk of sounding as though I disapprove of your intentions. And nothing could be farther from the truth.

I suppose I'm just bl**dy glad that it's you taking this on, and not me! I admire your tenacity, and I look forward to hearing how you get on.

 

[Jocelyn]

Strikes me that we could do with a few more BCO's who have a better understanding of listed properties so that better and more appropriate decisions could be made.

My last encounter was with a BCO before we moved up here. Seeking a discussion with the CO prior to enlisting an Architect from a company well known on this site, I found myself confronted by a very charming young man straight from University, well read and very keen, but he had not got a clue what he was looking at or for. It took me all my patience to establish whether he knew the house was listed, how old parts of it were and what kind of bricks he was looking at. Fortunately by the time the drawings were in, he had a better approach. It does worry me that there are so many people can see no further than the tick list, and jobs worth stuff. I wish 'hands on experience' could be the criteria before we loose more history to ignorant decision making.

 

[Gervase]

Strikes me that we could do with a few more BCO's who have a better understanding of listed properties so that better and more appropriate decisions could be made.

Aha. As part of the campaign, the hope is to mount an educational weekend conference at one of the Oxford colleges for BCOs to lead them gently into the paths of righteousness.

 

[Jocelyn]

That sounds good. Maybe they should then be attached to some good old fashioned builders in and around old properties for a few months for some practical experience.

Why Oxford?

 

[NT]

Let me put forward a suggestion that would eiminate any need for extra bureacracy, and you can all tell me where it would fail.

Today all BRs apply to all types of building, even the many inapporpriate ones. Divide BRs into 2 categories, all will continue to apply to new builds, but some will no longer apply to work on old houses. Then if I extend my corridor I can continue it at the same width, instead of having to make the bit on the end wider, I can continue with lime plaster, etc etc.

Maybe have requirements that work is appropriate to the building, that things are not made worse etc.


If that route is not whats taken, perhaps something along the lines that a builder/owner can get a suitably qualified expert to put in writing what would be appropriate, and surveyors could draft forms and accepted methods to do such work rapidly, mostly in tick box style, but the boxes are different depending on the construction type etc.

/babble


NT

 

[Gervase]

The problem is that a quarter of our housing stock is 'old', so it's important that something is done to make them more energy efficient.
As for the suitably qualified excpert, that's an area where there could be improvement. There are independent building inspectors, but they will tell you that it's not economically viable for them to do a report on an individual private dwelling unless the householder is prepared to pay serious money (running into several thousands). Maybe we need more of 'em, with some prepared to demean themselves by working for the 'oi polloi!

 

[Penners]

... just so long as the hoi polloi are prepared to cough up as much dosh as the toffs.

 

[Stephen]

Gervase

There is in fact much going on behind the scenes.

English Heritage has been working on a series of specific documents for some time now (the task is not easy when you consider the variety of material, techniques and building type there are). I am not directly involved in this, but I know who is. The status of these is yet to be decided, but they might even end up being Approved Documents themselves.

There have been indications that a document providing better explanation and interpretation of the regulations is to be prepared. A think tank / working group is presently being put together to consider and develop this further. I only found out about this very recently and am encouraged by what I hear. I think it fair to say the government are well aware of the confusion and problems that are being encountered in relation to the regulations.

A public campaign by you and your colleagues may be appropriate, but on the other hand could be wasted effort if the government is already tackling the issues behind the scenes. Rather than launch a campaign prematurely contact me (look up my Email via The Whitworth Co-Partnership) so that we can see how best to direct your efforts to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I know that this does not help those in the midst of work and discussion with BCOs at present, but there is some hope when looking at the future.

Stephen Boniface

 

[Nemesis]

I have spent the last two days taking a friend around Northumberland and Cumbria.

It is heartbreaking to see how much of a hold the plastic window industry has. It's almost at the stage now where you can spot the listed buildings as they are the only ones with timber. I also suspect that if I check I will find many buildings disfigured by horrible plastic are listed.