Building Control Journal June-July 2016

Building Control Journal Making the move Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s new stadium PG.

10

Planning ahead

The bigger picture

New wheels

The development of building control in Israel

Now is the time to rethink flooding strategies

Energy and conservation issues explored

PG.

5

PG.

7

PG.

8

June/July 2016

rics.org/journals

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

A DV E RTI S I N G

Diversity & Inclusion Conference 29 June 2016, Hilton London Bankside One year on from the launch of RICS Inclusive Employer Quality Mark (IEQM), this event signals a crucial shift in conversation from theory to practical application. The conference combines inspirational keynotes and leading case studies, offering attendees critical insights into improving and structuring their business to attract and retain talent.

The keynote speakers include HS2 CEO Simon Kirby, BNP Paribas UK Group Head of Diversity Vinay Kapoor and BNP Paribas Head of Property Management and Diversity Council Representative Paul Aubrey.

Sponsored by:

Book your place online today:

rics.org/diversityconference

Untitled - Page: 1

2016-04-14 17:08:32 +0100

Certificate in Building Information Modelling (BIM) – project management Develop a detailed knowledge of the BIM project lifecycle and gain the skills required to manage each step of the project with our six-month distance learning course.

Next available start date: 04 July 2016 To find out more: t 024 7686 8584 w rics.org/bimcertificate e training@rics.org

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om 2   J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

C O NTENTS

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

Building Control Journal Making the move Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s new stadium PG.

10

Planning ahead

The bigger picture

New wheels

The growth of building control in Israel

Time to rethink flooding strategies

Energy and conservative issues explored

PG.

6

PG.

7

PG.

June/July 2016

rics.org/journals

10

Front cover: ©Shutterstock

CO N TAC TS

contents 4 Time for new blood

18 Highway robbery

5 Training for the future

20 Getting it right

6 Securing a sustainable future

22 Where we are now?

Martin Conlon looks at upcoming changes that will affect the building control profession

BUI L DI N G C O N TR OL JOU R NAL Editor: Barney Hatt T +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E bhatt@rics.org Building Control Journal is the journal of the Building Control Professional Group Advisory group: Dave Baker OBE (Robust Details Ltd), Alan Cripps (RICS), Diane Marshall (NHBC), Michael Morgan (Butler & Young Group), Anthony Oloyede (LABC), Anna Thompson (LABC)

Osnat Rosen-Kremer describes the evolution of building control in Israel

Sean Tompkins discusses RICS input into a major international climate change conference

Published by: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T +44 (0)24 7686 8555 www.rics.org ISSN: ISSN 0265-6493 (Print) ISSN 1759-3360 (Online)

7 The bigger picture

Building Control Journal is available on annual subscription.

All enquiries from non-RICS members for institutional or company subscriptions should be directed to: Proquest – Online Institutional Access E sales@proquest.co.uk T +44 (0)1223 215512 for online subscriptions or SWETS Print Institutional Access E info@uk.swets.com T +44 (0)1235 857500 for print subscriptions

8 New wheels

To take out a personal subscription, members and non-members should contact licensing manager Louise Weale E lweale@rics.org

London Borough of Haringey Head of Building Control Bob McIver talks to Barney Hatt about Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s new stadium

Editorial and production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths Designer: Nicola Skowronek Creative director: Mark Parry Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros

It is time to rethink flooding strategies, says Alan Cripps

Michael Morgan considers issues surrounding energy conservation and generation

Dave Mitchell discusses issues related to section 38 of the Highways Act 1980

Andrew Foolkes examines how a performance-based fire engineering design is developed

Nick Hunt explains the significant differences between guidance for installing sprinklers across the country

23 Measuring performance

In the second of four articles about building control in Australia, Mark Anderson compares four energy performance schemes

24 Update

10 Making the move

13 Playing it safe

Ken Scott explains why the changing field of sports grounds could mean big revisions being made to the forthcoming edition of the Green Guide

14 Attention to detailing

Internal wall insulation offers opportunities for energy saving, but the choice of product requires care, says Philip Smith

16 Passive learning

Tony Godwin describes the process of building his home to the Passivhaus standard

While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in the journal, RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in the journal, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v1.0 for public sector information: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 3

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

CH A I R M A N ’S CO L U M N

Martin Conlon discusses upcoming changes that will affect the building control profession

Time for new blood

T The RICS is seeking to renew the membership of the Building Control Professional Group board for members who have completed their maximum time in post under the terms of reference.

The group serves members' interests and seeks to represent these in the wider world; I have been proud to be a member for some years, and especially proud to be the chair for the last three. The board has come a long way in recent times, and each member has contributed to the development of the profession in their own way.

New board The membership of the board

has a limited term of six years, and the current board’s term of office ends next March. We are therefore actively seeking applications from members who would be willing to serve on the board and take its work to the next level. The work is not especially onerous but would be very rewarding in terms of career development and enriching the experience of each participant.

If you are interested, please send your CV along with a statement outlining your specific building control interests to Alan Cripps, RICS Associate Director of the Built Environment (acripps@rics. org). We will then invite shortlisted candidates to a meeting to find out more about the board’s work.

Remember that the future of the profession is in your hands, so please take this opportunity seriously. It is the chance to make a mark on the work and progress of our group. I look forward to hearing from you and welcoming new members to the board.

RICS is revising the APC in line with developments in the profession and changes in working practices 4 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Europe Whatever the outcome of the UK’s June referendum on membership of the EU, there will be challenges and opportunities for both RICS and the building control profession. The UK energy requirements in Part L, for example, are a direct result of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in 2003, and whether or not the UK is a member of the Union may affect how we approach this issue. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne cancelled any changes to Part L for 2016 last year, so the referendum may also affect how we deal with carbon and energy issues.

In a recent training session with graduates, we attempted to forecast what changes would or could come about and how the legislation could be amended in the light of any new priorities. I was very impressed by the knowledge the group displayed and their mature approach to the problem, with some very thought-provoking ideas expressed on the future of low-carbon energy.

One thing on which we all agreed was that, in future, there will be no reduction in the demand for electricity – so the question is how we are to produce it without an adverse effect on the environment. We

Whatever the outcome of the EU referendum, there will be challenges and opportunities for RICS and building control created a model of energy supply based on hydrogen fuel cells that we thought could be the answer. I would very much welcome thoughts from you on this.

Finally, RICS is revising the APC in line with developments in the profession as well as changes in working practices.

Some of the current competencies are outdated and need to be rewritten or even removed from the list, while new competencies are also emerging thanks to the ever-changing development of technology. Again, please get in touch with me if you have any competency-related issues you think the board needs to address. b Martin Conlon is Chairman of the Building Control Professional Group martin.conlon2@btinternet.com

INTER NATIO NA L

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

Training for the future

T

Osnat Rosen-Kremer describes the evolution of building control in Israel he Israeli government started to reform the rather conservative 1965 Israel Planning and Building Law (IPBL) by implementing Government Resolution No. 963 in 2009, finally approved in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in March 2014 (IPBL Amendment No. 101 – 2014).

The revised Israeli planning and building system stresses improved and efficient licensing for construction and ensuring quality. As such, it protects the public’s and tenants’ safety and the value of property. Most of the changes will take effect this year, and among them is the key area of building control surveying.

Building control bodies Building control bodies (BCBs) are designed to oversee the design and implementation of construction, as a third-party accreditation system of building inspection, with the goal of optimising the control of licensing and construction and improving the overall construction industry.

Within this framework, the powers of the various authorities to approve specific aspects of building permits will be transferred to certified inspectors in the BCBs. The IPBL requires at least the four following authorities to authorise their own building control representatives: bb the Ministry of Health bb the Ministry of Environment Protection bb Israel Fire and Rescue Services bb the authority in charge of the Civil Defence.

A professional design and building control system will operate as a safety net or a ‘third eye’ for local needs, thus: bb ensuring the quality of a property bb protecting investment in buildings and adding value bb bringing together all statutory authorities bb saving time and money for all stakeholders.

Training programme The Israeli building control surveyor training programme has been developed in partnership with RICS. It is delivered both face to face and online over a period of nine months and comprises the following competency modules: bb course introduction and building control in Israel bb building control inspections bb legal and regulatory compliance bb plan checking bb environmental audit bb ethics bb fire safety bb building pathology bb risk management bb final assignment.

The enrolled participants, including very experienced practical engineers and architects, were required to attend a total of 170 hours of face-to-face meetings, spend at least 150 hours learning online, submit weekly assignments, answer quizzes and pass examinations. In addition, they had to spend a period shadowing building control professionals in the UK. At the conclusion of the course, the candidates had to pass a final assessment, which consisted of a formal interview conducted by a panel.

In March 2016, on successful completion of the building control training programme, around 45 delegates from the sixth course for building control surveyors received an RICS certificate of completion and were also certified according to Israeli regulations.

At this stage, there are now more than 200 certified building control surveyors in Israel. However, this is not yet enough to handle all applications for building permits and construction works in Israel so, in addition to the ongoing seventh course, there are efforts to conduct more courses with the RICS. Amendment No. 101 to the IPBL includes BCBs that will start operating from 1 November 2016 as part of the construction process, which should result in a smarter and more effective form of planning and building in Israel. b

The building control bodies are designed to oversee the design and implementation of construction, as a third-party accreditation system of building inspection

Since building control is new to Israel, there was no course of study to become a building control surveyor. Therefore, one of the principal concerns was over who would carry out the building control function and from which discipline they would come, as well as what their qualifications and experience should be.

Establishing a new profession and ensuring the competency of its members takes time, and the government took on the responsibility for driving the study and training of the pioneers who will set up the first BCBs in Israel. In order to improve the know-how of the first generation of such surveyors, the planning administration enlisted RICS.

Dr Arch. Osnat Rosen-Kremer (FRICS) is Director of Building Licensing – Regulation, Planning Administration, Israel Ministry of Finance OsnatRo@iplan.gov.il

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 5

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

CL I M ATE C H A N GE

Securing a sustainable future

T

Sean Tompkins discusses RICS input into a major international conference he history of dealing with climate change is hardly a tale of unambiguous, ambitious leadership.

Nineteen years after the landmark Kyoto Protocol was signed, global temperatures have continued to rise and the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has reached its highest level in more than a million years. Oceans are becoming dangerously acidic and sea levels are going to rise, even if we all stopped burning carbon tomorrow. With much of the world’s population living in coastal areas, the consequences will be significant. Climate change is often seen as an environmental issue, a concern for a minority of those living in the developed world or a curious preoccupation of indigenous people.

In fact, climate change is about human prosperity and security. It threatens to disrupt our economic models, break supply chains and force mass population movement. The latest Global Risks Report from the World Economic Forum (http://bit.ly/1hu9fk0) highlights 29 global risks over the next 10 years, and identifies “failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change” as having the most impact.

At the UN Climate Change Conference, COP21, in Paris last December, world leaders made encouraging progress in agreeing a target of no more than 1.5–2°C average temperature rises compared 6 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

to pre-industrial levels. But politicians alone cannot deliver the necessary cuts in emissions: political good intentions can soon be knocked sideways by short-term exigencies and lobbying by special interest groups. Businesses face challenges in the form of pressure to return growing profits yearly and pay strong dividends to shareholders. And who would have predicted that oil prices would have crashed to the point where investment in renewable energy now looks like a poor deal?

So who will take the long-term view and turn good intentions into practical steps?

My answer is: professional bodies. As its Charter requires RICS to act in the public interest, it has a responsibility, given that buildings consume around 40% of the world’s energy and contribute up to 30% of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

At COP21, RICS argued that professional standards provide confidence to make the bold commitments that are urgently needed. For example, RICS can develop, promote and deliver sustainability standards across the whole property lifecycle. International Property Measurement Standards will make it easier to measure and compare energy efficiency based on floor area; International Construction Measurement Standards will do the same for embedded carbon. These standards will mean more reliable and consistent valuation of property and more certainty regarding running costs. Taken together, Image © Shutterstock

these steps can also help markets better understand the value added by sustainable features.

We know that markets are increasingly interested in sustainability. Globally, 2014 was a record year for the green bond market. There was over $35bn in new issuances, more than triple the previous year. All these investors want good returns for their savings balanced against risk. To a responsible fund manager, low-efficiency buildings are a risk. On the positive side, research by RICS and others has found that energy-efficient buildings offer higher investment yields, achieve higher rents, attract occupants more quickly and spend less time empty.

This is more than a question of technical standards. They have to be applied ethically and must be regulated.

RICS made a number of commitments at COP21: 1. to strengthen the business case for energy-efficiency measures by building capability among valuers; RICS has already made sustainability an integral part of the Red Book professional valuation guidance 2. to increase market confidence in climate change commitments by supporting internationally standardised and vertically integrated measurement and reporting.

Furthermore, RICS will play its part in defining the sector’s climate goals, promoting transparency, information exchange and greater energy efficiency in the built environment. Among the first steps have been the launch in 2015 of the RICS/UN resource Advancing responsible business practices in land, construction, real estate use and investment (http://bit.ly/1SehuSO), and the launch in February of the UNEP Finance Initiative’s Sustainable real estate investment framework (http://bit.ly/1RoIf9v), which RICS co-authored. The latter provides professionals with user-friendly guidance that can support the implementation of climate-risk strategies.

There is much to do, and I shall refrain from making grandiose, long-term predictions. But I can say with certainty that everyone across the surveying sector has to take climate change seriously. I am determined that RICS should take a lead in this vital field. If it does not, then who will? b Sean Tompkins is RICS Chief Executive stompkins@rics.org

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

F LO O DING

OPINION The bigger picture

L

Alan Cripps says it is time to rethink flooding strategies ast winter, the ineffectiveness of recently constructed flood defences in northern England was exposed following storms in Cumbria and Yorkshire. This flooding and the increasing uncertainty of weather patterns owing to climate change have together contributed to a growing awareness that reliance on traditional forms of defence alone is not working.

The latest theory is that flooding should be assessed on an holistic basis, where all areas in a catchment are examined to ensure that the best overall strategy for reducing flood damage is adopted.

Flooding will never be eliminated in its entirety, but the more solutions that are in place to reduce water flow in the catchment, the more floods can be contained. If the local drainage system is clear, ditches and culverts have been maintained, individual properties have installed protection and resilient materials are used, the risks of damage will be dramatically reduced if floodwater does reach built-up areas.

These measures will make the clean-up and drying process quicker, enabling re-occupation sooner after the event. There is now also evidence to show that the use of resilient materials is helping the process.

Flood Re Flood Re – the flood insurance scheme set up by the UK government and industry in April 2016 to provide cheaper insurance to homeowners in parts of England most vulnerable to flooding – has secured reinsurance deals worth £2.1bn with 38 insurers. The scheme will cater for around 350,000 households in high-risk areas, but excludes businesses and houses built after 2009.

It is time that homeowners take some responsibility to prevent their properties being flooded: there should be an obligation on them to carry out resistance or resilience works. If they ignore the problems, they could be excluded from the scheme. The use of resilient materials as well as the protection of individual properties is recommended, subject to suitability, as a way of limiting the extent of flooding.

Local authority planning departments should not be allowing developments in such areas without imposing conditions on planning approvals stipulating the use of resilient materials up to first-floor level. Sustainable urban drainage systems should be used on the estate to drain rainwater, while the overall impact of the project on surrounding areas should be considered to minimise the effects of flooding.

Following floods, existing properties should be reinstated using resilient materials, not those from which they were originally constructed. There would be only one way to guarantee this, however – some form of change to the Building Regulations.

With the establishment of Flood Re, there would seem to be more scope for such regulatory reform. Previously, insurers would have termed resilient construction a “betterment”; although this is clearly the case, the benefits of using resilient materials for reinstatement also include quicker clean-up and drying times. If the homeowner can return to their property sooner as a result, it will reduce the costs of alternative accommodation.

Insurers have always argued that there is no benefit to them as businesses in paying for retrofits because the homeowner could change their policy provider the next day. But with Flood Re in place for the most vulnerable properties, retrofitting could become a more viable option. The homeowner’s policy is likely to stay in the Flood Re scheme, so their property can in turn benefit from the installation of resilient materials after another flood, with resultant savings. There would also be less damage, if any, at minimal cost to the scheme overall, and therefore faster resolution of the claim for damage. C

Alan Cripps is RICS Associate Director of the Built Environment acripps@rics.org

www.floodre.co.uk

Building Regulations Perhaps the time has come to look at amending the Planning and Building Regulations to help push this agenda. It seems ridiculous that we should be building in floodplains or adjacent to high-risk areas without using resilient materials on lower storeys.

Related competencies include Insurance, Design and specification, Legal/regulatory compliance

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 7

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N CY

New wheels

O

Michael Morgan discusses energy conservation and generation issues

ne year ago, I took delivery of a cutting-edge four-wheel drive vehicle known as a PHEV. To those of you without a phone that can pay for your lunch and a watch that tells you how many calories you have burnt, “PHEV” translates as a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

Essentially, this is a car that is partly petrol-powered and partly electric-powered. Being part eco-warrior and part techno-freak, I was in awe of this technology, which declared an eye-boggling fuel economy of 148 miles per gallon (mpg). To put this into perspective, the most economical diesel at the time had a quoted figure of 74mpg.

Would this PHEV single-handedly avert climate change?

After a few months of use, I noticed that on short journeys this car performed amazingly, in that sometimes I used very little petrol, if any, with most of the journey done on electric power.

However, I noticed that on long journeys, particularly when the battery ran out, the quoted 148mpg was probably a slight exaggeration as I was getting a worse performance than with an average diesel engine of the same class. I am sure the quoted figure was above board and tests were carried out in accordance with guidance; but, as is often the case, these did not seem to match the reality.

Performance gap So, what has all this got to do with building control?

There has been much concern recently about the potential gap between designed and as-built energy performance in the construction industry. Until its closure in March, the Zero Carbon Hub was making a stringent effort to help reduce this gap (see Building Control Journal, February/March 2016, p.14).

It is hoped that the introduction of fabric energy efficiency standards – minimum standards for fabric in new dwellings – in the 2013 edition of Part L1A may go some way to closing the gap (http://bit.ly/1KuCPbj). This Part L performance target is measured in per square metre of floor – kWh (m2.yr) and therefore, although related to carbon emission targets maintains some separation from them.

The focus of these efforts is to give construction professionals a better understanding of factors that affect energy loss and maintain adequate internal temperatures for occupants. Some would argue that this adds further complexity to the situation when simplification of the guidance and requirements is what the coalition Red Tape Challenge wanted to achieve.

Factors such as thermal bridging, air permeability, thermal mass, external heat gains (such as solar) and internal heat gains, (such as from occupants’ metabolic activity) all have a role to play, but it is very difficult to get the balance right.

Overheating in new homes Last summer, there were various articles in the press about overheating in newly built homes, and this seems set to become more of an issue as average global temperatures rise (see also Building Control Journal, April/May 2016, pp.6–7).

It would appear that Criterion 3 of Part L1A, “Limiting the effects on solar gains in summer”, either does not deal with this issue appropriately or is not being followed correctly (http://bit.ly/1Q2QX7O). In reality, it is likely to be a mixture of both factors. Given the emphasis on heat loss in the industry, how will the legislation and building designers react?

In recent years, there has been some improved guidance on airtightness testing for dwellings, with practical guides being published on design and construction techniques. This is all positive for unwanted air leakage; but what is the gap between the tested and actual air leakage rate?

The majority of dwellings that I have seen built recently have mechanical ventilation and heat recovery fitted, because of requirements that air quality in dwellings achieve an air permeability rate equal to or less than 5 m3/(h.m2) at 50 Pa, which are the units for air leakage rate. This makes you wonder why the industry does not simply adopt Passivhaus standards.

For me, the only reason is economical, and that also seems to be the reason why the government has put any revisions to Part L on hold. However, if we are talking lifetime cost, would it really be that expensive for the homeowner? Or is it more to do with short-term issues such as profit margins for developers?

“Not my problem”

Michael Morgan pictured alongside his plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

8 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Whose problem is it?

The focus here is on carbon emissions, but there are a lot of other underlying factors for energy conservation and generation, such as energy security. It does seem as though the construction industry and prospective homeowners bear the brunt for carbon abatement.

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

Is it not time that we stopped pushing for more efficiency and simply pushed for better, cleaner energy production? stopped pushing for more and more efficiency, particularly via complicated predictive computerised models, and simply pushed for better, cleaner energy production? Much like the PHEV, what we are currently doing does not quite work in practice.

The role of Building Regulations

Building Regulation 25A requires a cost–benefit analysis to be carried out for the implementation of low- and/or zero-carbon technologies on all schemes that need an energy assessment.

There is no obligation to adopt any of the technologies suggested as part of the assessment; but if required, the outlay for these would come from the developer and presumably be passed on to the client and/or homeowner.

This would prompt the question that, if the government has signed up to the reduction of carbon emissions, shouldn’t it be paying for this? Moreover, if the government were more proactive in funding and enabling the development of truly green energy, which would not include fracking, then couldn’t this cost be spread a little further?

Huntingdonshire District Council recently had a large banner on its website celebrating the fact that its objection to local wind farms had been condoned by the government. Is this really something to revel in? The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 exclaimed: “We will halt the spread of onshore windfarms”, maintaining that “Onshore windfarms often fail to win public support … and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”. Does this mean fracking has full public support?

This is not really a message the UK should be conveying across Europe, particularly considering its poor performance in green energy compared with other economic super powers.

Figures released in 2013 have shown that Norway leads the way (in Europe) with more than 65% of its energy consumption being supplied by renewables.

One of the least well-performing countries is – surprisingly – Germany, but its figure is still a respectable 12.4%, compared with the UK’s abysmal 5.1% (http://bit.ly/1Pgub1F). Will the new deal struck at last year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Paris make any difference?

The fundamental laws of thermodynamics mean that waste energy will be generated in any process. Is it not time that we Images © Michael Morgan

An energy assessor may be able to explain this, but it has always amazed me why mains gas is the baseline fuel for potentially carbon-neutral sources in Table 1 of Approved Document L1A. What amazes me even more is that grid electricity, which could potentially come entirely from renewable resources in future, has a worse fuel factor than mains gas. Should the fact that we currently get the majority of grid electricity from non-renewable resources really affect the potential? Will this change in the next set of documents?

As it stands, those who operate on-site renewables or low- and zero-carbon generation appear to have little, if any, benefit over those who build traditionally fuelled dwellings. I am not saying that those with such technologies installed should be allowed to waste energy freely, but surely there should be more incentive to use them, such as more design freedom?

One of my other bugbears is that L1A seems to neglect embodied energy and use of materials. I understand that this would be a very complex factor on which to give guidance, let alone to control, but it would seem mildly ignorant to overlook it.

Building control surveyors are in a unique position in the industry to advise and comment on many issues related to energy conservation and sustainability. This is particularly evident when dealing with existing building stock where, in some instances, the guidance is less prescriptive. It is then down to professional opinion and, as was explained to me as a trainee, the ‘spirit’ of the regulations.

Where matters of building heritage conflict with energy conservation, I believe we still have a duty to ensure the best possible outcomes. In a way, I see us as educators, advising on the use of the latest materials and technologies to reduce the environmental impact of the UK’s building stock. C

Michael Morgan is Senior Project Manager at Butler & Young michael.morgan@byl.co.uk

Related competencies include Energy, Construction Technology and Environmental services, Legal/ Regulatory compliance

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 9

H

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

S P O RT STA D I A

ow did the borough first become involved with the new stadium?

Haringey Building Control has been working with the club for many years on ground licensing and has chaired the safety advisory group. The Haringey team became involved in the proposals for a replacement stadium in 2008 when the club originally approached the authority for planning permission. We had numerous pre-application discussions with the then designers over how to meet the Building Regulations and resolve issues arising from the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, more commonly known as the Green Guide.

The club first received planning permission in 2010, and has been working with the council ever since on delivery of the project. This included completion of phase 1 – a new learning centre and Sainsbury’s supermarket – in 2014. Following a change in the stadium design team in 2015 and a new planning application, Haringey Building Control has continued to work closely with the main contractor, MACE, on delivery of the stadium. Planning permission for the new stadium, next door to the current White Hart Lane ground, was granted by Haringey in December 2015.

What have been the sustainability and environmental impacts?

The new ground is on an area where the first few metres of the subsoil is gravel.

The contractors have excavated, washed and graded the gravel, and are re-using it. It has been more successful than they originally thought because they have actually got more gravel than they need.

The major benefit has been that the project has not needed lorries to go to landfill, nor had as many concrete lorries coming in.

What considerations have there been in relation to the surrounding infrastructure?

The council is well advanced with ambitious plans for the regeneration of the North Tottenham Area. This area benefits from work with the Greater London Authority on the “opportunity area” as well as detailed strategies for North Tottenham and an emerging local plan. The stadium will be an important part of that future ambition, alongside proposals for a makeover at White Hart Lane Overground station to increase capacity and quality, and a competition for a new development 1 0 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Making the move London Borough of Haringey Head of Building Control Bob McIver talks to Barney Hatt about Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s new stadium partner at “High Road West” (an area to the west of the stadium).

Potential works are also in the pipeline at other nearby stations, including mainline Northumberland Park and Tottenham Hale Underground station, redevelopment of which has already been consented. In future, if the proposed Crossrail 2 scheme goes ahead, that will also improve stadium access. The aim is to get people to travel to the ground by public transport as much as possible because there is an extensive controlled parking zone in place in and around the area, with a further extension to be added across Haringey’s boundary into the borough of Enfield.

Turning to Approved Document M, and specifically to supporters who use wheelchairs, what considerations are needed to achieve compliance?

There are still discussions taking place

at this stage with various access groups including Level Playing Field, which looks at stadia in particular. Consultations have already taken place with this group, to the extent that the stadium’s bowl design has been reconfigured with additional accessible spaces installed.

The stadium design consists of three distinct stands in a horseshoe shape, plus one 17,000-seater single-tier stand, which will be the new home end. The closest thing to the style of this is Borussia Dortmund Football Club’s single-tier stand in Germany.

When Tottenham Hotspur decided to review its application, it wanted to try to get the seats as close as possible to the touchline, to generate the best atmosphere. New stadia are often designed with sections where supporters are sitting a long way from the pitch, which can stifle this atmosphere. The design does present a number of safety

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

The capacity of the new stadium will be 61,000 – considerably more than the current capacity of 36,200 – which will make it the largest club stadium in London

the south stand to reveal AstroTurf underneath. This presents interesting challenges for the structure of the south stand, as the columns will be spaced further apart thereby creating larger spans of the beams supporting the stand than you would normally expect in order to accommodate the pitch.

issues, but not insurmountable ones – it is an interesting and different approach.

It is encouraging to see the number of flexible spaces that are being considered.

A wheelchair user will be able to have the rest of their family sitting with them rather than somewhere else in the stadium, for example. The positions are also going to offer some of the best views. There will be more accessible toilets, and we are working towards installing Changing Places toilets, which have more features and space than standard accessible toilets (www.changing-places.org).

Are there any special features in place so that a football match can continue without disruption, such as back-up generators or a heated pitch?

These features are all part and parcel of the Green Guide and, in fact, of all modern football stadia. At the existing White Hart Lane stadium these measures are already in place, because to be a Premier League club you have to have undersoil heating and generators, so that if there is power failure then facilities can be up and running again quickly.

One of the interesting and different features of the new ground will be a retractable pitch, which will enable the stadium to host at least two American football games each season as well as concerts; the pitch will slide under Images © THFC

Are there any other Green Guide or fire safety implications for the design?

It will be a fully sprinklered stadium, which brings lots of benefits in terms of fire safety, and from the user’s perspective. It also makes it a much more flexible area, because if it is not sprinklered you have to have sterile areas without concessions or food outlets.

What will the capacity of the new stadium be?

It will be around 61,000, which is considerably more than the current White Hart Lane ground’s capacity of 36,200, and which will make it the largest club stadium in London. That will bring with it interesting dynamics because there will be more stewards and first-aid and catering staff.

Have there been any conflicts between technical standards, that is, between the Building Regulations and Green Guide, which you have had to address?

Not at the moment, but it is still relatively early days in the process. In a lot of instances, the Green Guide requirements are more onerous than the Building Regulations. It does not present a conflict because the club has to comply with the guide for us to certificate the stadium.

What role does building control play in the safety team?

At Haringey we are fortunate because as

well as being Head of Building Control, I am also Chair of the Safety Advisory Group, so we deal with issues concerning safety at sports grounds. Our relationship with the club started in 1986 when Haringey took over the sports grounds safety role from the Greater London Council when it was disbanded, and I have chaired the Safety Advisory Group since 1994.

This has helped us form a strong partnership with the club, and we tend to be the building control body that does any work for it. This is obviously one of the big benefits with the new stadium because it looked to Haringey for the building control work rather than to an approved inspector or anyone else.

The club will often ask for our advice at a very early stage and, as we have the ability to perform both roles, it reduces the chance of conflict. The club benefits from working with one section – building control – and this cuts down time and wasted costs in trying to manage regulatory consents. So when we go to meetings with the club, we are able to talk with both hats on. This has certainly prevented a lot of issues that could otherwise have arisen.

I have spoken to colleagues involved in the various new stadia developed in the capital in recent years, including the London 2012 Olympics Games, Emirates and Wembley stadia. They have shared with me their experiences of various situations, which help to make the process progress smoothly.

Taking the example of the Olympics, there was the benefit of local authorities coming together with the formation of the Joint Local Authority Building Control (JLAB) team (see Building Control Journal, June/July 2015, pp.6–7). We are actually using JLAB’s expertise on this J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 1 1

n

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

n

S P O RT STA D I A

project, as we have signed a collaboration agreement that includes working with both its Olympic structural engineering and mechanical and electrical teams, and so far it is working really well.

It is not the first time there has been this level of cooperation throughout London, and it will not be the last. I also think this is the way forward for building control in London to deal with the vast amount of development in the capital.

Haringey would not have sufficient expertise to do it all on our own, so we are using this knowledge from elsewhere.

Do you have any views about the concept of ‘safe standing’ rather than an all-seated stadium?

At this moment in time, the new stadium is not designed to have safe standing, and it would need a change in Premier League regulations for this to happen.

However, it is being trialled elsewhere – in Scotland, for example – and Borussia Dortmund also has safe standing in its large single-tier stand. The proposed design may well be adapted in future to allow for an increase in the number of exits and concourse spaces, for example, so if the regulation does change the club will not have to do retrofitting work.

Are there any special measures for emergency planning?

The existing stadium certificate has contingency plans with the fire brigade, ambulance service and the police that dovetail with Haringey’s contingency plan for emergencies. It will be exactly the same with the new stadium.

We have already started looking forward to the target opening date and what needs to be in place at that stage in order for the safety certificate to be issued. The first competitive game will take place in August 2018, but prior to that we would like to get some test events into the stadium. What shape or format those events will take has not yet been decided.

What stage is the work currently at?

The works on site have started, with pouring of the basement slabs already begun. At the moment there is a great big hole where the stadium will be, effectively in a horseshoe shape around the existing stadium [see images above and below]. The interesting dynamics will be how the existing stadium is maintained while works progress during the 2016–17 season. This will mean building works finish at certain times to allow the stadium to prepare and clean in preparation for the matches.

At the moment, we have a safety certificate that is reviewed year on year.

In future, depending on what stage the works are at and the impact they have on ingress and egress to the existing stadium, we may have to issue special safety certificates for each fixture. This in itself will be a big piece of work.

What are the evacuation strategy and ongoing management controls?

It may be that the evacuation strategy for the existing stadium will need tweaking or amending to enable the works to continue. This is part of the problem of

building adjacent to an existing stadium.

Looking forward to mid-2017, the existing stadium will need to be demolished for the rest of the work to continue, and the team will then play their matches in a stadium yet to be decided, but outside Haringey, for the 2017–18 season.

We also deal with demolitions, which are perhaps not normally thought of as something building control does, so we are not only concerned with the Building Regulations. Obviously the amount of demolition work that has happened to date involved issuing numerous demolition notices under the Building Act 1984, and this continues. The demolition has been relatively straightforward as the buildings have to date, all been low-rise.

A lot of the area was occupied by light industrial units and taking these down to the ground was not a problem. Getting the stuff out of the ground was a bit more difficult, though, because there were big lumps of concrete everywhere.

Another way in which the club has benefitted from its relationship with us is our link to other departments of the council. So if the club needs to contact highways, environmental health or the food team for example, it can come to us and we can help with this rather than just have it coming in blind. C Barney Hatt is Editor of Building Control Journal bhatt@rics.org

Related competencies include Planning, Fire Safety, Health and Safety, Legal /Regulatory compliance, Sustainability

1 2 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

G R EEN G UIDE

Ken Scott explains why the changing field of sports grounds could mean big revisions in the forthcoming edition of the Green Guide

Playing it safe

M

uch has changed since the publication of the first edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, more commonly known as the Green Guide, more than four decades ago in 1973.

The guide is widely used to help determine the safe capacity of grounds by safety management teams. It is recognised around the world by technical specialists such as architects and engineers as an important document supporting design and management. Since the tragedy at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield, UK, in 1989, many major stadium redevelopment programmes worldwide have been built to the standards set out in the guide.

The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) is committed to providing best practice guidance and advice, informed by good-quality research, to help ensure spectator safety. Since the publication of the last edition in 2008 there have been many advances in the design and management of grounds and many technological developments, and the sixth edition of the Green Guide will be updated to reflect these changes.

Computer-based modelling Computer-based crowd movement modelling has become more widely used in recent years, and these predictions provide valuable information for design and safety management. Explanation of the relationship between crowd modelling and the published static calculations in the Green Guide could therefore be a useful addition.

BS EN 13200 Spectator Facilities, a new suite of standards, is being developed by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to ensure harmony across the continent. A number of the standards have been released, and there will be further additions in the Image Š SGSA

Proposed disabled platform for Milton Keynes Football Club, responding to the accessible stadia agenda coming months to complement these.

The standards will mirror many sections of the present Green Guide, and will also be reflected in the new edition.

All editions of the Green Guide since 1990 have been developed and produced under the administration of the former Football Licensing Authority and as such, although they are relevant for all sports, they have had a bias towards football. The introduction of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority Act 2011 and the formation of the SGSA together provide an opportunity to ensure that the guidance reflects the needs of all sports that use grounds. The guide will also consider the global nature of sport, and aim to reflect the needs of international sports bodies.

Spectator behaviour Since the fifth edition was published in 2008, a number of trends and spectator behaviours have emerged, including the use of pyrotechnics in sports grounds.

On the management side, there has in recent years been a shift towards risk-based general safety certificates, supported by operations manuals and an array of contingency plans; the revised guide should therefore ensure that its recommendations do not come into conflict with these.

One such area is in the guidance on medical and first-aid provision for spectators. Discussions have been ongoing for some time in the medical profession to develop contingency plans that better fit current levels and types of injury, and the risks associated with sporting events, and this would enable more bespoke planning for events.

The lessons learnt from the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, in particular

in last-mile planning and demountable structures, could also be considered for inclusion in the revised Green Guide.

Accessibility The current edition of Accessible Stadia was published by the former Football Licensing Authority and the Football Stadia Improvement Fund in 2003, and a supplementary guidance note by the SGSA in 2015. The revision of the Green Guide offers an opportunity to discuss whether the content of the Accessible Stadia guidance should be included in it or whether is better suited to a stand-alone publication.

Changes in legislation, including alterations in UK law, the prohibition of smoking in public buildings and the emergence of e-cigarettes, should be reflected in the new edition. The guidance should also be updated with references to other relevant existing guidance and standards, including the document Alternative Uses of Sports Grounds published by the SGSA in 2015.

The outcomes and recommendations from the Hillsborough Inquests, which concluded recently, will also be recognised. We will examine the findings carefully and look at how to include them in the Green Guide if appropriate. C

Ken Scott is an SGSA inspector ken.scott@sgsamail.org

Related competencies include Inspection, Legal/Regulatory compliance

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6   1 3

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

I N S U L ATI O N

Internal wall insulation offers opportunities for energy saving, but the choice of product requires care, says Philip Smith

Attention to detailing

T

o begin with, a few statistics: around 30% of buildings in the UK have uninsulated solid walls— more than eight million — and space heating contributes around 75% of energy use in buildings.

Given that around 45% of heat loss in the average solid-walled property passes though the walls, if roof/loft insulation and double-glazing have been installed, solid wall insulation appears the next logical step to reduce heat loss, promising huge savings in terms of energy and carbon emissions.

Insulating the walls externally may be the more obvious choice, but external wall insulation is not generally permitted to front walls in conservation areas and normally requires costly alterations to roofs and reveals. The alternative is internal wall insulation (IWI), although this requires careful consideration of detailing and thorough preparation to avoid pitfalls.

Product range The range of products, systems and materials available reflects the varied technical and economic requirements of the marketplace.

Rigid insulation boards formed of phenolic foam, polyurethane, polyisocyanurate or wood-fibre are fixed mechanically to studwork or by dot and dabs. Aerogel Spacetherm is claimed to have the highest thermal performance (measured in U-values and R-values), albeit at considerably higher cost than comparable rigid-board products, at around £150.

Some products cope better than others with damp. Expanded and extruded polystyrene products (EPS and XPS) can be installed in locations where condensation is an issue and vapour permeability is not required, such as window reveals.

Alternatively, mineral wool batts can be inserted between studwork.

Knauf provides an integral system that uses thermally-engineered studs with XPS bonded to oriented-strand board 1 4 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

(OSB), which can be prepared off site.

For larger-scale insulation projects, wet-sprayed cellulose also offers large economies of scale and can fill gaps otherwise inaccessible.

Those wishing to address the broader sustainability agenda of low-embodied energy might prefer natural, less processed materials such as sheep’s wool, hemp, cotton or natural fibre, or wood-fibre. Advocates maintain that the new finishes provide a healthier environment due to greater thermal comfort and the radiant heat of the surroundings. However, slightly thicker insulation layers might be required to achieve the target U-value.

Insulating the inside of solid walls results in a marginal reduction in floor area, so it is worth checking what thickness is required to achieve the target U-value. Whether or not this is significant enough to affect the property value depends on its location.

However, the visual impact can often be mitigated by design. For example, the splayed corners of the window bay and bookshelves can conceal insulation that is returned along the back of the alcove to prevent thermal bridging.

Not all insulation products on the market provide significant improvement in thermal efficiency, so it is always worth checking the U-value would comply with Building Regulations for improved external solid walls before selecting. Part L1B stipulates a U-value of 0.3W/m2K, and similar criteria apply under Part L1A.

services. Cold bridging can also occur through the insulation’s fixings and some systems provide thermally broken screw fixings. BRE’s Good Practice Guide 183 Minimising thermal bridging provides a set of recommended section details.

Internal insulation reduces the temperature of the masonry wall to which it has been applied. Academic research indicates the increased risk of frost damage in UK building stock is not significant. However, the insulation causes a shift in the dew point, potentially resulting in interstitial condensation. This may damage external wall finishes.

Opinion is divided about how to manage moisture when insulating walls internally. Some systems incorporate a vapour barrier to the inside face. Other so-called breathable systems allow vapour to pass through both insulation and brickwork. Where a vapour-closed method is used, vapour barriers need to be continuously sealed and taped at edges to prevent moisture bridges.

Adequate ventilation to internal spaces l Windows require particular consideration

Thermal bridging The effectiveness of insulation depends on how well it integrates with other building elements that conduct heat more efficiently. Insulation must overlap at junctions and not be compressed excessively. Ill-conceived detailing at junctions may compromise its performance and lead to condensation and the ensuing problems.

Particular consideration should be given to window reveals, unvented joist ends, partition walls, the eaves junction and penetrations for building Images © Philip Smith

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL l Wood fibre board is one choice for insulation

l Rigid polyisocyanurate boards are fixed with battens

l Splayed corners to a window bay conceal insulation that runs behind a bookcase

is then all the more important to avoid problems associated with condensation.

The installation process Careful consideration should be given to the practicalities of installing each product and selecting the system that best suits the circumstances. For example, one might think twice about specifying heavy 2.4m rigid boards to upper floors in a high-rise block.

One manufacturer has produced an automated installation system with laser measurements, which allow batts to be pre-cut off site.

Time is paramount, given the cost of labour and decanting owners or tenants, but allowance is needed for preparing walls, for example, hacking off plaster and sealing damaged brickwork. Personal protective equipment is particularly important for installing mineral wool and some rigid boards that produce fine dust.

Electrical cables will be exposed and may require upgrading for fire safety.

Studwork must support the load of fixtures such as radiators, curtain rails and shelving, which must be refitted, along with light fittings and sanitary appliances. Many owners choose to refit decorative coving, dado rails and the like.

Close supervision of installation work (or ‘upskilled’ personnel) is necessary to

ensure high standards of work. Careful measurement and precision fitting is required to reduce thermal bridging and avoid breaks in vapour barriers. Insulation should be refitted where necessary to avoid small gaps that would make a big difference in thermal performance.

Regulatory compliance Multiple tenure remains the greatest legal hurdle, because occupiers often lack a long-term interest in the building and generally require freeholder consent to undertake alterations.

In addition to Building Regulations Part L1B or L2B requirements, consideration should be given to Part B, appendix A relating to the spread of fire and minimum required periods of fire resistance, Part E (sound resistance) and Part F (ventilation). Part M (access) restricts the minimum width of new stairs to 1,200mm, which could limit insulating stairs internally.

Listed building consent and the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 may apply in some instances. In one recent case, Kelliher v Ash [2013], the judge concluded that the particular method used to remove plaster was notifiable under the act.

The regulatory body Solid Wall Insulation Guarantee Agency provides guarantees for solid wall insulation (www.swiga.co.uk).

The greatest economies of scale can be achieved by the use of more efficient installation processes. It is the labour that costs the most rather than the materials.

Precise financial payback periods will be unique in each case. Naturally, better cost savings can be achieved when installing IWI as part of an existing refurbishment project, as well as for larger-scale insulation schemes.

Until recently, the upfront cost of IWI provided a strong disincentive to private owners to install it. Funding from the Green Deal and grants such as the Energy Company Obligation removed this barrier. However, the Green Deal did not achieve the anticipated uptake after its introduction in 2013, with its over-complex and lengthy implementation process seemingly its greatest weakness.

The scheme relies initially on automated reports generated from fixed data entry on site. Installing IWI clearly requires careful consideration of the technical issues summarised above, in particular, with regard to thermal bridging and moisture management.

I am sceptical as to whether the Green Deal’s profit margins permit the detailed consideration or have the capacity to calculate and inform owners accurately of the cost benefits of each measure. In any event, the current government has withdrawn funding with no promise of reinstatement on the horizon.

The potential benefits of IWI are clear from a statistical perspective, even though the improved thermal performance may not be immediately apparent to the occupier following installation. Installers must be aware of the inherent pitfalls and hurdles, as well as the level of quality control required to achieve the full benefits of improved thermal efficiency.

But given the great opportunity it offers to make huge savings in carbon emissions and to reduce the nation’s dependency on imported fuels, sooner or later its value will fall under the spotlight.

The ball is now in our court. C

Phillip Smith is a building surveyor at Watts psmith@sustainablerenovation.co.uk

Related competencies include Construction technology and environmental services, Conservation and restoration, Housing maintenance, repair and improvements, Sustainability

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 1 5

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N CY

Passive learning

I

Tony Godwin describes the process of building his home to the Passivhaus standard

It is now 15 months since we moved into our Passivhaus.

Humidity and warmth are consistent, to the extent that you cannot believe how cold it is when you go outside. The mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) system quietly rids the house of lingering smells and excess water vapour, meaning that our laundry dries overnight, if not sooner.

The designed temperature of 20°C does not feel cold because the limiting values – including a requirement to be 12 times more airtight than UK Building Regulations Part L – ensure that thermal comfort is maintained, and you can sit right by the windows without feeling cold.

Proven methodology Passivhaus is a methodology for achieving very low-energy buildings in all climates.

There is also a standard for retrofitting with less demanding heating demand and airtightness targets, and two for nearly zero-energy buildings that factor in renewable energy generation (see Building Control Journal November/December 2015, pp.18–19).

Passivhaus is not a prescriptive construction method, but the heating demand of 15kWh/m2/year and the limiting values make 1 6 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

1 Rutland Passivhaus south-west elevation 2 Timber frame in progress: living, dining, kitchen space with bedroom wing beyond

3 A bunch of services – here pre-insulated

solar thermal pipes with sensor cables – passing through the airtight layer are difficult to seal

4 Expanded polystyrene insulation and tanking at the base of the retaining wall

1 airtightness and thermal bridging far more critical than they are in UK Building Regulations. Although they should be well within the capability of construction workers to achieve, the standard still involves some unfamiliar techniques and materials that require planning, care and teamwork.

Designing for the Passivhaus basics from the outset is essential, and buildings should be orientated and glazed to enable solar heat gain. Architects ought to be able to use the Passivhaus Planning Package (PHPP) with a sketchUP plug-in for 3D modelling to assess early concepts; but I would still recommend using an experienced Passivhaus designer because data input is critical for certification, and experts can help with detailing. The Passivhaus Trust, the UK affiliate of the International Passivhaus Association, is a helpful resource, and its annual conference provides a great

opportunity to engage with other practitioners.

Surprisingly, the UK has 22 different climate datasets, among which the East Midlands – where our home is built – is one of the coldest.

Our first PHPP iteration predicted a heating demand of 22kWh/m2/year because its ‘T’ shape with single-storey sections and a garage under the first floor resulted in a high ratio of external surfaces to floor area, and there was also a greater proportion of glazing to the north. The redesign, featuring improved U-values and envelope thicknesses up to 600mm, required a new planning permission.

Fabric With the lower floor of the house built into the slope of the site, the external envelope had to have detailing for above- and below-ground conditions, maintaining continuity of waterproofing, insulation and airtightness.

The solution comprises a 300mm double-stud Images © Tony Godwin

structural timber frame filled with Warmcel – blown recycled newsprint that fills the voids around the studs – set on a ground bearing slab in front of the reinforced concrete retaining wall.

The slab sits on a minimum of 200mm high-compression expanded polystyrene (EPS) over a damp-proof membrane, joined to a self-adhesive tanking membrane applied to the retaining wall. The wall is insulated externally with EPS, protected by a composite plastic drainage membrane and geotextile.

This arrangement exposes the concrete slab internally, with its mass providing thermal storage that delays the effect of external temperature fluctuations and also reduces the resultant energy requirement, keeping the insulation dry for thermal performance as well.

The timber frame is lined internally with a Durelis vapour-proof oriented-strand board that acts as the airtight layer, and the plasterboard is

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

2

rooms via the heat exchanger, changing the air around every three hours. A gap under the internal doors provides a route for returning air.

Heating and hot water is provided by a small gas boiler serving a wet system circuit with three strategically placed radiators, three heated towel rails and a 110-litre hot-water storage cylinder. The choice of gas as an energy source was entirely pragmatic, providing low capital and running costs with familiar technology.

We also have a 1.8kW solar thermal panel and a 3.5kW solar photovoltaic array.

Construction, procurement and cost

3

4 battened off this to provide a 37mm zone for services. A mineral wool ‘overcoat’ is then fixed externally in the cavity behind the various cladding types, providing continuity with the EPS below ground.

Energy, heating and ventilation The high level of airtightness makes an MVHR system an integral part of a Passivhaus.

The ductwork has to be designed and integrated into the building at an early stage.

The air extracted from the bathroom, the kitchen and the utility room, where the plant is located, warms the 100% fresh-air input to all other

The project team was vital to the project’s success, remaining open-minded and collaborative on unfamiliar territory; but only previous experience could have prepared us for the critical role of airtightness detailing. We air-tested on completion of the airtight layer – an essential process – and carried out two further tests, with many person-hours spent finding and rectifying leaks before achieving the required value of 0.6 air changes per hour (measured at 50Pa pressure).

A schedule of all service penetrations should be prepared and agreed by the mechanical and electrical contractors, and appropriately sized airtight grommets purchased. Proposed substitution of specified insulation material must be reported and agreed; in our case, the mineral wool in the roof was built up in layers of different thicknesses with different lambda values and the contractor varied these, resulting in a loss of U-value.

In selecting contractors and suppliers, we prioritised those in a 30-mile radius of the site for the sake of sustainability, and avoided nominating subcontractors so that the main contractor would remain responsible for all aspects of the project, except for

unfamiliar items critical to the Passivhaus standard. We only sourced imported items though UK distributors, which we assessed for reliable support infrastructure.

Prices obtained for the timber frame during the design stage revealed an apparent premium for manufacturer’s systems developed for superinsulation and airtightness, which led us to make this a domestic sub-contract. However, the lack of understanding of Passivhaus and the inflexibility of the manufacturer’s system, which was designed to meet UK regulations only, created construction difficulties that probably outweighed the savings we made.

Procuring windows that were triple-glazed from the manufacturer Katzbeck in Austria was a lengthy process due to indirect communication through the UK installation representative. In future, I would always make time to visit the manufacturer.

Note that tilt or lift-and-slide windows are difficult to make totally airtight due to the mechanisms involved; we have two in our living area, and it is noticeably cooler on really windy winter days.

For the sake of certainty, I chose a Passivhaus-certified Paul MVHR system, designed and supplied by the Green Building Store, and would still look no further.

We have calculated the additional construction cost for meeting the Passivhaus standard to be 25.6%, which is based on median BCIS rates for constructing the building on a flat site to current Building Regulations.

A report in 2015 commissioned by the Passivhaus Trust concluded that costs were 10–20% more than for achieving level 4 of the government’s now abandoned Code For Sustainable Homes. However, these figures do not consider lifetime costs, nor do they value the extra quality and our increased comfort and health.

Performance There is no doubt that the building performs in line with expectations. Visitors always comment on how warm the house is, and our energy usage is well within the limit of the Passivhaus criteria.

Our energy bill for the past year was £900 or £4/m2. To put this into perspective, the 2004 Wimpey-constructed house that we rented during construction – a compact 7.8m x 7.8m on two storeys – cost £18/m2, which is equivalent to £4,185 for the same area as our Passivhaus.

Heat is only required in our new home when the external temperature falls to 7°C, and when we are indoors, it is better to leave the heating on and control it by the remote digital thermostat.

This is generally left in the living area, but we do move it with us into the bedroom on colder nights due to the temperature differential.

While this was expected, because the bedroom has a higher proportion of external envelope than other parts of the house, the differential is never more than 2°C. Our studio is heated nicely by ourselves and by our office equipment during the day.

Humidity varies little from a level of 60%, and maximum summer temperature indoors is 25°C. As one of our visitors during an International Passivhaus Open Day exclaimed: “Why would anyone not want to build a Passivhaus?” b Tony Godwin is an architect at FCD Architecture fcd@fcdarchitecture.co.uk

www.passivhaustrust.org.uk www.passipedia.org

Related competencies include Legal/Regulatory compliance, Sustainability, Planning and Construction Technology and Environmental services

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 17

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

L E GA L

Highway robbery

T

Dave Mitchell discusses issues related to section 38 of the Highways Act 1980

he Highways Act 1980 deals with the management and operation of the road network in England and Wales, and it consolidates several pieces of legislation that date from earlier periods.

When dealing with residential developments, it is usual for a local authority’s highways department to enter into an agreement under section 38 of the act to secure the formal adoption of any newly constructed roads.

The local authority agrees to adopt the street as a highway maintainable at the public expense once all the street works have been carried out to its satisfaction.

As part of the process, it is customary for the developer to commit to the provision of a bond, based on the highway authority’s estimated cost for the works.

This bond is effectively held by the local authority and protects it against losses should the developer fail to meet its obligation to provide the necessary infrastructure, in accordance with the authority’s specification and standard.

and bureaucratic, causing delay and unnecessary additional costs for builders.

We have reached the point where action to address these concerns needs to be taken. While not the case everywhere, this experience has become more and more prevalent for builders, in particular over the last 25 years.

Complex process

In many cases it can take significant time to get designs approved by the local authority. We need to consider implementing a time limit for highway departments to approve designs that mimics the planning system, to speed up the process and cut delays to the commencement of work.

There is currently no incentive for local authorities to adopt roads in a timely manner, and in many instances the adoption process can take much longer than the date specified in the section 38 agreement. Until roads are adopted, local authorities will not be responsible for the cost of their maintenance, a situation that presents developers with ongoing, open-ended costs that are difficult to factor in to budgets.

This is compounded by the bonds provided by builders having to be held for longer than is necessary, thus locking

The adoption process has been in place since the Highways Act 1959 became statute – section 40 of that act being the forerunner of section 38 of the 1980 act – and it has hardly changed since the original legislative requirements were drawn up.

From a relatively straightforward highway environment in 1980, the processes involved in local authority adoption of roads under section 38 of the 1980 act have increasingly been of concern for developers.

Back in 2008, I took part in extensive discussions with the Department of Transport regarding the need for a better, more modern approach to the adoptions process at a time when authorities were imposing increasingly onerous demands.

Since then, the whole process has become increasingly expensive 1 8 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Planning Highway departments are statutory consultees for planning applications, yet they increasingly go their own way and impose additional standards after planning consent has been granted, despite having established design standards in place.

We need to find a way whereby final designs are agreed as early in the process and as quickly as possible. Doing so would reduce delays and the potential need to consider late changes to scheme design. Pre-application discussions would seem to be the way forward, but developers’ experiences suggest that highway authorities are reluctant to enter into such early-stage discussions.

Designs, adoption and approval

up capital and adding to costs. These in turn have direct cost implications for the developer, with the bond provider usually imposing overrun charges on bonds that should have been cancelled.

We would like to see a time limit imposed from the point when a developer has applied for adoption. Doing so would provide certainty for all parties and reduce costs. On large developments that can take a number of years to complete, it would be sensible to see phased adoptions agreed between the developer and local authority.

We are also keen to avoid unreasonable pre-adoption remedial lists, which developers are given following the statutory one-year maintenance period. These sometimes get changed, even when the works are carried out to the highway department’s satisfaction, and can add a further six to 12 months to the adoption process. Similarly, we also experience widespread delays in processing legal agreements, which can take six to nine months to be executed and put in place.

Clearly, developers do appreciate the acute challenges that local authorities are facing, with budgetary constraints and pressures applied by central government.

But ultimately, we are wholly reliant on local authorities’ service provision and are desperate to see action taken to improve the service for which we are paying. One solution to this could be to introduce private-sector competition into the process.

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

As a result of inspection fees levied by local authorities, we are increasingly seeing developers favouring the section 37 route to adoption over section 38

Commuted sums In recent years, the commuted sums demanded by local authorities have increased significantly and are now often in excess of the actual cost of constructing the road. It is difficult to fathom, however, why legislation that has largely remained unchanged since 1959 should now be used to demand such payments when previously this has not been the case.

Yet as a result, the inspection fees levied by local authorities – which are percentages of the commuted sum – have risen accordingly. It is mainly as a result of these costs that we are increasingly seeing developers favouring the section 37 route to adoption over section 38.

In the former case, the developer notifies the local authority of its intention to proceed to adoption by way of the section 37 approach at the time of technical approval submission. A specific request should be made for the local authority to confirm the key-stage inspections that will be required and the evidence that will need to be presented to demonstrate compliance.

While the local authority is not obliged to inspect, records will need to be kept of the dates and times when inspections were requested, together with the response(s) from the local authority.

Supervision and verification of compliance with the local authority’s construction specification will need to be undertaken at the developer’s cost – a Images © IStock

competent or accredited highway or civil engineer will need to be retained for this.

These costs are not recoverable.

On completion of the work, including installation of streetlights, a formal request for adoption is submitted to the local authority. Any refusal to adopt can be immediately referred to the Magistrates’ Court. If there is still a refusal to adopt, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State for their determination.

Although a real alternative to section 38, this route is arguably not ideal for either party. The local authority does not receive an inspection fee, and it also causes uncertainty for the developer.

More generally, it makes the process much more adversarial. Given this, its increased use is itself symptomatic of the wider failings of the current system for road adoptions.

Of course, with the whole section 38 process (as indeed more generally), some local authorities are better than others and do deliver a good service.

But we should not be hostage to the performance of individual authorities, and we need to find a way of ensuring the effectiveness of the adoption process is not a postcode lottery.

Setting targets or encouraging local authorities to perform to best practice standards could help.

NHBC Foundation report An NHBC Foundation report published in 2011, Ground-related requirements for new housing (http://bit.ly/1SUlTc0), provided a clear overview of the problems with section 38 – and these issues are just as applicable today, with the added caveat that demands for commuted sum payments are now far more frequent and more costly.

The report’s findings include the following observations. bb There have been few occasions when developers have encountered planners and highway authorities

working effectively together. This is often accompanied by an inconsistent interpretation and application of existing design guidance, for example, the Manual for streets. bb Developers want standardised highway design guidance instead of the more than 150 variants that exist at present for the design and construction of simple residential estate roads. bb The approval process for safety audits and section 38 technical submissions takes far too long. bb Highway authorities are not proactive in terms of getting roads maintained or formally adopted. Publication of the levels of adoptions on an authority-by-authority basis would be helpful and support the localism agenda. In addition, agreed key performance indicators would greatly assist matters. bb Developers continue to encounter hold-ups in satisfying highway-related planning conditions. This has the potential to delay a start on site, with the unintended consequence of a potential for late delivery of much-needed new housing.

My view is that the time has come for a root-and-branch review of the 1980 act.

We now need a more practical piece of legislation fit for the 21st century that allows for a less adversarial approach to the current, out-of-date process that developers can use where necessary. C

Dave Mitchell is Technical Director at the Home Builders Federation www.hbf.co.uk

Related competencies include Legal/Regulatory compliance

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 1 9

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

FIRE

Getting it right Andrew Foolkes looks at how a performance-based fire engineering design is developed

F

ire engineering designs are regularly reviewed by building control surveyors; but what methodology is used to develop a performance-based design?

Statutory requirements for fire safety throughout the world are primarily concerned with protecting people from death or injury. In many jurisdictions, compliance with life safety criteria is part of functional requirements, and is supported by design codes that provide standard approaches for common types of building.

In the majority of such supporting codes – for example, Approved Document B (ADB), volume 2 – one alternative to a standard approach is to use fire engineering to show that a departure from an otherwise code-compliant design still meets the functional requirements, or – in particularly large and complex buildings – that the code may be entirely put aside.

International Fire Engineering Guidelines (IFEGs) and BS 7974 provide disciplined frameworks and advice for the development of performance-based fire engineering designs.

The process for preparing a fire engineering design under both regimes is broadly similar. The four main stages are: 1. qualitative design review (QDR) 2. quantitative analysis 3. assessment against criteria 4. reporting of results.

This is reflected in Health Technical Memorandum 05-02, where the code recommends that representatives of approval bodies are part of the QDR process in large, complex healthcare buildings to ensure that their views receive consideration. Building control surveyors’ help and advice are essential to such consultation, but it is essential that their impartiality and independence is maintained.

It is critical, therefore, that the necessary functional objectives of a performance-based design are well defined and understood by both the designer and the building control surveyor. For example, consider the following comparison.

The functional requirement relating to means of escape in Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations is well known: “The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of

QDR The main stages in QDR can be broadly summarised as: bb reviewing architectural design and occupant characteristics bb establishing fire safety objectives bb establishing fire scenarios for analysis bb identifying acceptance criteria and methods of analysis.

Building control is integral to the review.

2 0 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Image © Shutterstock

being safely and effectively used at all material times.”

On the other hand, the life safety goals in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 – the US life safety code that is also used in many other international jurisdictions (http://bit.ly/1vY2j9K) – are designed “to provide an environment for the occupants that is reasonably safe from fire by: bb protection of occupants not intimate with the initial fire development bb improvement of the survivability of occupants intimate with the initial fire development.”

The NFPA recognises that it may not always be possible to prevent injury to an individual who is located close to the source of fire – for instance, a blaze in an open-plan apartment – but requires that people who are not in the immediate proximity of the outbreak of fire are suitably protected and able to leave the building in safety.

Therefore, it is clear that a performance-based design may be

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

quite different when it seeks to meet the objectives of NFPA 101, rather than the functional requirement in Part B of Schedule 1 in the Building Regulations.

At this stage, the projected maximum building occupancy and any credible design fire scenarios should also be agreed. The review should consider the number, likely distribution and response characteristics of occupants, and, where appropriate, occupants who may have mobility, sensory or cognitive disabilities.

In some cases, it may be feasible to identify a particular, individual scenario that clearly represents a credible worst case. However, in a complex building such as a shopping centre, it is likely that a number of scenarios will require detailed assessment.

It is essential that building control surveyors engage in agreeing the possible fire scenarios with the design team, especially given the time and expense of any advanced modelling – such as computational fluid dynamics – required in quantitative analysis.

The fire scenarios considered at design stage should reflect credible worst-case conditions, taking account of factors such as the rate at which it spreads, its severity and its smoke generation potential, in particular locations such as under a balcony edge.

Consideration of how the building will be used – for example, the need for maintenance and management – is also important in any fire engineering design.

The design must not be over-complex, neither should it rely disproportionately on management actions to achieve a life safety goal. Building control surveyors therefore have an important role to play

Building control surveyors have a key role to play in ensuring that fire engineering approaches do not rely on unrealistic or unsuitable management procedures

in ensuring that the fire engineering approaches do not depend on unrealistic or unsuitable management procedures.

Quantitative analysis It may be that the QDR has identified an approach that meets the design objectives without the need for further work. However, if it has not, a quantitative analysis will then be needed.

The three criteria outlined in BS 7974 and the IFEGs against which the acceptability of a design can be considered are comparative, deterministic and probabilistic. bb Comparative approaches are commonly used to demonstrate that an alternative being used in the design provides a level of safety equivalent to that recommended by the recognised code, such as ADB vol. 2. bb A deterministic study is also commonly used to show that, on the basis of the established credible worst-case scenario(s), a defined set of conditions will not occur – for instance, that the smoke layer will not fall below head height in a large high-bay warehouse during the evacuation period. bb In a probabilistic study, criteria are set by the fire safety engineer to ensure that the probability of a given event occurring is acceptably low. The risk criteria are usually expressed in terms of the annual likelihood of the unwanted event occurring, such as the probability of the sprinkler head failing to activate is 1 in x per annum.

Presentation of results The report should be clearly set out and describe the basis of the design and calculation procedures used. This may sound fairly obvious, but in my experience of building control this information is often not clearly presented.

Sufficient detail needs to be provided for a third party to be able to assess, and if necessary repeat, any calculations and computer modelling that have been carried out.

The study must state and justify any assumptions so that they can be readily understood by building control and the occupants. As a minimum, the designer should always provide the chosen conservative design assumptions (which offer a degree of resilience), safety factors and details of the sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the robustness of their results.

The study should form part of the fire safety information required under

Building Regulation 38 in order for the occupant to understand why the passive and active measures in their building have been provided in the way that they have.

If those responsible for the continued safety of the building during its operation do not understand the fire strategy, there is little chance that they will be able to maintain it.

Building control surveyors have an important role to play in making sure that performance-based design is undertaken properly. It is critical that those who are carrying out fire strategy design seek early engagement from the approving authorities at the QDR stage, so they can make certain that any performance-based design proceeds on the basis that it can be both successfully peer-reviewed and approved.

Building control surveyors also need to be confident that the responsibility for developing a performance-based design rests with a suitably qualified and experienced person who carries appropriate professional indemnity for that design as well; they could, for example, be an engineer registered with the Engineering Council (i.e. CEng or IEng) via a professional engineering institution such as the Institution of Fire Engineers. This principle is analogous to RICS membership, in that it provides the client with confidence in the competency and capability of the surveyor whom they have engaged.

Most importantly, when reviewing performance-based designs, it is incumbent on building control surveyors to identify when a fire strategy and its supporting analyses are so complex that they are beyond their capability to review. In such cases, the surveyor should feel confident to advise the client accordingly, and take steps to agree with the client to commission an independent review from an appropriately qualified third-party fire engineer. C

Andrew Foolkes is a fire engineer at Tenos andrew.foolkes@tenos.com

Related competencies include Fire Safety, Legal/regulatory compliance

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 2 1

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

FIRE

Where we are now?

S

Nick Hunt discusses the significant differences in guidance for installing sprinklers in Wales, Scotland and England prinklers have saved and do save businesses, properties and most importantly lives from the destructive effects of fire. But support from legislation and guidance for their inclusion in buildings varies significantly across the regions.

Wales Wales leads the UK in proactive legislation and guidance on the

installation of sprinklers.

Since 30 April 2014, new and converted care homes, children’s residential homes, boarding houses, halls of residence and some hostels have been required to install automatic fire suppression systems. On 1 January 2015, this requirement was extended to include new and converted houses and flats. Since 2007, it has also been a condition of Welsh Government grants that all new school buildings and significant refurbishment projects have sprinklers installed.

Scotland Since 2005, all new residential care homes, sheltered housing, covered shopping centres and domestic accommodation above 18m in height have had to be fitted with sprinklers. Warehouses storing some hazardous materials may have to be fitted with sprinklers, and where warehouses exceed 14,000m2 in size, sprinklers should be fitted.

In 2010, schools were included in this requirement, although a Freedom of Information request has found that in recent years there have been instances of Scottish ministers allowing exceptions to the installation of sprinklers in such buildings.

England In England (and Wales), Approved Document B (ADB), Fire safety in buildings (vols 1 & 2, dwellings and not dwellings) to the Building Regulations identifies instances where sprinkler provision is required, and cases where it can be used by designers to relax or eliminate other requirements. Provision of sprinklers can be used, for example, to allow buildings to be built closer together – half the spacing is required – to extend travel distances to a fire escape and to increase the quantity of beds in a residential care home, as well as negating the need for self-closing doors and allowing delayed evacuation.

Specific requirements for life safety in ADB apply to residential blocks over 30m high, open areas in a shop, or self-storage buildings over 2,000m² in size and single-storey buildings for industrial or storage use over 20,000m² in size.

Rather than the prescriptive method used in ADB, BS 9991 and BS 9999 interpret the Building Regulations by using risk profiles that again allow the relaxation of some requirements.

For new schools that are to be maintained by local educational authorities in England and Wales, Building Bulletin 100, Design 2 2 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Two bedsits: with and without sprinklers for fire safety in schools (2014), identifies that “each year around 1 in 20 schools experiences a fire”, most of which occur during occupation, and it recommends the installation of sprinkler systems. In an all-party debate on sprinklers in schools in October 2015, it was reported that in the period “April 2007 to May 2010 an estimated 70% of schools and academic buildings had automatic sprinklers installed … However, since 2010 the figure has plummeted to 35%”.

While the incidence of fires is falling, possibly in part due to evolving fire safety legislation, related guidance and modern means of risk mitigation, alerting and improving fire safety awareness, Wales leads the way in directing installation of sprinklers in the areas where most deaths from fire occur – 66% of fire-related deaths in Britain in 2013–14 were in accidental dwelling fires.

The benefits of installing sprinklers are recognised by a range of interested organisations, and in December 2015 representatives from the fire safety, insurance and sprinkler sectors came together to agree a statement of intent to “present [sprinkler installation] to government as a cost-effective and efficient risk-reduction measure, with the aim of minimising the social, economic and environmental cost of fire”. Publication of this statement is awaited.

Variations in application and regional disparities notwithstanding, the bottom line is clear: sprinklers save lives and property. They are a serious fire protection measure and we should give them the respect that they deserve. C

Nick Hunt is a fire safety officer at West Midlands Fire Service nick.hunt@wmfs.net

Related competencies include Fire Safety, Legal/Regulatory compliance

Image © BFSA

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

INTER NATIO NA L

Continuing his series from Australia, Mark Anderson looks at energy performance

Measuring performance

I

n November, the Building Services Research and Information Association announced plans to develop a prototype UK scheme based on the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS).

There are three similar schemes in Australia: Green Star, NABERS and BREEAM. The first two rate building sustainability, with the main difference that Green Star

rates design at conceptual and as-built stages, while NABERS rates operational effectiveness. BREEAM rates design and usage, and it is also internationally applicable.

Table 1 compares them with the UK’s energy performance certificate (EPC).

As the NABERS prototype will provide useable data on the building after it has been constructed, it allows a new occupant to benchmark it against other similar buildings and be confident that, when they move in, they will have a good idea of likely running

costs. It also gives facility managers a chance to fine-tune systems to occupants’ needs and obtain results on its performance close to the original design.

Unlike Green Star or BREEAM, the NABERS prototype is more agile, but it does not necessarily consider all of a property’s sustainable features. As NABERS is based on actual data from working buildings and EPC is not, adoption of the former would enable buildings to be more demonstrably sustainable for just a bit more effort. However,

as an EPC requires less effort to obtain at present, it is likely to remain the preferred option unless NABERS is mandated.

If so, it will have merit in the marketplace. But it is also likely to be seen as an enhanced EPC nudging EPCs out of the market. C Mark Anderson is Senior Building Certifier at KPMG SGA manderson4@kpmg.com.au

Related competencies include Sustainability

Table 1 Comparison of key features of Green Star, NABERS, BREEAM and EPC Green Star

NABERS

BREEAM

EPC

Environmental impact reviewed

Potential

Actual

Potential and Actual

Potential

Rating metric

Design

Performance

Design and performance

Design

Timing

Design phase and/or as-built

When in use1

Design phase and/or as-built and when in use

Design phase and/or as-built

Properties covered

Office, Multi-unit residential, Retail, Healthcare, Education, Industrial, Office interiors

Office, Residential, Hotel

Office, Multi-unit residential, Retail, Healthcare, Non-Residential

Office, Residential

Section

- Whole buildings - Office fit-outs - Integrated fit-out and base building

- Whole buildings2 - Tenancies - Base building

- Whole buildings - Office fit-outs - Integrated fit-out and base building - Existing buildings

- Whole buildings

Ratings based on

Indoor environment quality, Energy, Water, Waste, Management, Transport, Materials, Land use and ecology, Emissions, Innovation

Indoor environment quality, Energy, Water, Waste Management, Transport, Materials

Indoor environment quality, Energy, Water, Waste, Transport, Management, Land use and ecology, Emissions, Innovation, Materials

Indoor environment quality, Energy, Materials

Certifiable ratings

4, 5 or 6 stars

1, 1½, 2, 2½, 3, 3½, 4, 4½ or 5 stars

1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 stars

A, B, C, D, E, F or G

Governing legislation

None – accreditation is voluntary, not mandated

Must disclose NABERS energy rating when selling or leasing3

None – accreditation is voluntary, not mandated

Must disclose energy rating when selling or leasing

Source

www.gbca.org.au/green-star

www.nabers.gov.au/public/ WebPages/Home.aspx

www.breeam.com/

http://bit.ly/1UFGPd8 http://bit.ly/1MPLeHM

A “commitment agreement” made prior to building use allows a building owner to publicise the NABERS star rating sought Building must be 75% occupied (tenanted) to gain a whole building rating 3 Applies to office buildings of 2,000 sq. m or more from November 2010 (under Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010) 1 2

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 2 3

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

U P DATE

UPDATE Low and zero carbon homes RICS has published The future of policy and standards for zero and low carbon homes. Written in the light of the government’s 2012 housing standards review, the research report follows ministers’ decision to scrap the 2016 zero carbon target – although the House of Lords voted against this ruling in April – and the closure of the Zero Carbon Hub in March after the withdrawal of industry funding.

The report says: “Although the 2016 target has been scrapped, concerns about the capacity of the sector to deliver low and zero carbon homes remain important, with ambitious UK climate change targets and EU ‘nearly zero energy’ buildings targets for 2019/2021 still in place.

“Even if and when Building Regulations do become aligned with the nearly zero target, there would still be a potentially significant role for voluntary standards in driving innovation beyond the regulatory minimum.” n www.rics.org/futurepolicystandards

Obituary

We are sorry to report that Craig Waters FRICS, a former President of the Institute of Building Control, has died. He was a very influential and well-respected building control surveyor, both nationally and in the North West of England. We would like to offer our condolences to his family and friends.

Publications

The NHBC Foundation has published guidance on using ventilation, heating and renewable energy systems for new homeowners. It points out that the incorrect use of home ventilation can lead to increased condensation, mould and air pollutants, which can affect health and domestic comfort. n http://bit.ly/1Pg1Cvq The House of Lords, the UK parliament’s second chamber, has published the Lords Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment’s Building better places report. n http://bit.ly/1Q4ToLR

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om Cembrit-book-150x426.indd 1-2

2 4 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

Image © Shutterstock

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

LABC superstars

Thirteen council employees in England and Wales have won Local Authority Building Control (LABC) Superstar Awards. These outstanding individuals were nominated by their building control colleagues for always going the extra mile to support their clients, protect the public or improve their departments’ performances. A winner was chosen for each of LABC’s English regions and Wales by a judging panel including private-sector building industry experts. n http://bit.ly/1VjtSof

Building regulations guide Single fire test urged

The fire at the Address Downtown Hotel in Dubai on New Year’s Eve (see Building Control Journal, March/April 2016, p.20) and other recent high-profile blazes in tall buildings have highlighted that facades present a significant risk.

There is now general agreement that conventional small-scale reaction to fire tests and larger-scale fire resistance tests are unsuitable for modelling the behaviour of facade blazes. With the European Commission currently evaluating the options for the development of a new facade test and classification system in the European Union, the European Association for Passive Fire Protection has called for a single test method to be established. n www.eapfp.com

The Guide to the Building Regulations 3rd edition, written by Huw Evans and published by the NBS, is available for reference in the RICS Library. Updated to incorporate the 2015 amendments, it includes the introduction of optional requirements in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations – which will only apply if they are made a condition of planning consent – and an optional, higher standard of water efficiency for Requirement G2 (Water efficiency), which may be required as a planning condition. n http://bit.ly/1Pr8pCF

Everything you need to know about fibre cement slate.

(All under one roof)

For a free copy of this 80 page book please contact Cembrit on 020 8301 8900 or email sales@cembrit.co.uk www.cembrit.co.uk

To a d ve r t i s e c o n t a c t Em ma Kennedy +4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak @wearesu nd a y.co m Image © Alamy

11/04/2016 09:50

J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6 2 5

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

A DV E RTI S I N G

APPROVED INSPECTORS AND CONSULTANT SURVEYORS UK AND IRELAND Surveyor Link provides surveying services primarily for structural warranty and mortgage providers. There are also general surveying and condition survey opportunities. We do not provide valuation services.

Due to rapidly increasing demand, we require partnering Approved Inspectors in England and Wales and consultant surveyors throughout the UK and Ireland.

The time involved is variable, ranging between occasional to 20+ hours per week depending on location and how much you want to work.

Applicants must have excellent: • Knowledge of technical requirements of the Building Regulations • Report writing, administration and communication skills • Ability to work to timelines • Flexibility Jon Hollely 01626 871099 jon@surveyorlink.com www.surveyorlink.co.uk

Certificate in Building Information Modelling (BIM) – project management Develop a detailed knowledge of the BIM project lifecycle and gain the skills required to manage each step of the project with our six-month distance learning course.

Next available start date: 04 July 2016 To find out more: t 024 7686 8584 w rics.org/bimcertificate e training@rics.org

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om 2 6 J U N E / J U LY 2 0 1 6

BAUDER BioSOLAR LAYERING PV WITH A GREEN ROOF Y O U R F L AT R O O F P R O J E C T S DELIVERED, MONITORED, GUARANTEED

SUBSTRUCTURE AND ALUMINIUM RAILING SYSTEM

SUBSTRATE AND SPECIFIED VEGETATION

COMPLETED PHOTOVOLTAIC GREEN ROOF

ONCE A STAIRCASE. NOW A STROLL THROUGH HISTORY. As your home becomes more important, so does your insurer.

Home insurance Special rates for RICS members 0800 840 2349 | hiscox.co.uk/rics Terms and conditions apply, for full terms and conditions see www.hiscox.co.uk/rics.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is an Appointed Representative of Hiscox Underwriting Ltd which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. For UK residents only. 14145 01/15