Building Control Journal Keeping an open mind The changing world of service delivery PG.
14
Inspiring others
Rise of the new
Hitting the target
The drive to attract more women into the profession
The UK’s first amphibious house beats the floods
A new approach to zero carbon homes
PG.
8
PG.
10
PG.
18
November/December 2015
rics.org/journals
IT’S NO GOOD BURYING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND...
...YOU NEED BAFE
PROMOTING QUALITY IN FIRE SAFETY INFO@BAFE.ORG.UK 0844 335 0897 The Fire Service College London Road, Moreton-in-Marsh Gloucestershire, GL56 0RH
When you specify fire alarms, portable extinguishers or emergency lighting you need to be sure that they meet the latest standards, using approved equipment and that your contractor is competent. There are now over 1000 companies registered to more than 1250 BAFE schemes from all parts of the UK who are certified so that they meet your requirements. These key Third Party Certification schemes are backed by UKAS accredited Certification Bodies thus ensuring you get the products and systems your fire risk assessment requires.
WWW.BAFE.ORG.UK
C O NTENTS
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
Building Control Journal Keeping an open mind The changing world of service delivery PG.
14
Inspiring others
Rise of the new
The drive to attract more women into the profession
The UK’s first amphibious house beats the floods
PG.
8
PG.
10
Hitting the target
November/December 2015
A new approach to zero carbon homes PG.
rics.org/journals
18
Front cover: ©Shutterstock
CO N TAC TS
contents 4 A passion for education
14 Keeping an open mind
5 Update
16 Joining forces
Martin Conlon discusses initiatives to improve the training of new entrants to the 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), Michael Morgan (Butler & Young Group), Anthony Oloyede (LABC), Anna Thompson (LABC) 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) 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 To take out a personal subscription, members and non-members should contact Licensing Manager Louise Weale E lweale@rics.org
Editorial and production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Gill Rastall Designer: Nicola Skowronek Creative director: Mark Parry Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com
Trevor Clement describes the impact of market changes on local authority building control
Tracy Aarons discusses the benefits and difficulties in developing partnerships to supply services
6 A logical step?
Dave Mitchell offers his view of the government’s energy efficiency announcements
18 Hitting the target
7 Learning from disaster
Onur Gunduru describes how a development in Izmir has been designed to mitigate earthquake risk and embrace sustainability
8 Inspiring others
Sophie Smith outlines her part in the campaign to attract more women into the profession
Rob Parnell examines the shift in emphasis in the quest for zero carbon homes
20 On the safe side
With new homes now subject to security standard regulation, Mick Reynolds describes the approval process
9 Future proof homes
Paul Knight discusses the eco-credentials of a group of houses in Kent
10 Rise of the new
The UK’s first amphibious house is leading the way in flood-resistant design, as Richard Coutts explains
12 Model answers
Paul Everall looks at the way that different councils are dealing with the increasing squeeze on services
Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros
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
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 3
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN
Martin Conlon discusses initiatives to improve the training of new entrants to the profession
A passion for education company, and I have discovered that many other building control bodies are also currently recruiting. I and one of my colleagues have also been offering support to student members who want to do the RICS APC but are experiencing problems.
We must ensure that the next generation of building control professionals is trained and coached properly
APC Most people who know me are aware that my great passions in life are my family, cricket and rugby. Not always in that order. As far as building control is concerned, my great passion is, and always has been, the development of education and training to improve our profession. I have been involved in many significant educational initiatives over the years, including one of the first bespoke building control degrees and the first master’s programme plus the ‘old‘ Part 3 course that the Institute of Building Control used to run at Warwick University. Recently, I have been impressed by the high calibre of graduates and younger people entering the profession. We have taken on four new employees in the past few months at my
All this leads me to conclude that as the economy is picking up, so is interest in building control as a career choice. This is something that pleases me no end. Recognising that the APC – our route for accepting new members and assessing their competency – needs to be reviewed and modified, RICS will be rolling out changes over the next few months. I would strongly urge employers to find out what these mean in terms of providing adequate training and support to their trainees, so that when they present themselves for interview they are fully and properly prepared. The regional training advisers are always willing to help any employer deliver quality training. We must ensure that the next generation of building control
4 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
professionals is trained and coached properly. I have been contacted recently by younger members – and potential future members – who want to get involved in the work of the professional group. These willing and enthusiastic volunteers need to be encouraged and I have been able to ensure that they can play a part in the development of the profession, thereby helping to improve the image and the quality of building control. If anybody else would like to get involved I would be pleased to talk to them.
CPD As the year end approaches, we need to consider submitting our online CPD records. Since the introduction of online recording, the percentage
of members completing the records has exceeded all expectations. I would urge all members to complete the process as soon as possible, thereby minimising any delays or chasing by RICS staff. The next step will be to sit down and consider what areas of CPD each of us needs for the coming year. If you have any specific training or CPD needs that are not being provided for then contact the local office or RICS training and request it. You can guarantee that there are others who need the same training, and RICS may be able to fill that gap and so assist in the development of your career. b Martin Conlon is Chairman of the Building Control Professional Group martin@assentbc.co.uk
UPDATE
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
UPDATE All change on energy initiatives In a series of controversial and unsettling announcements, the government withdrew funding for the Green Deal in June, effectively ending the former administration’s flagship energy efficiency retrofit programme (http://bit.ly/1ejkSwX). Subsidies for onshore wind farms have also ended and the government has launched a consultation that proposes to end subsidies for small scale solar farms. Finally, zero carbon homes targets have been scrapped, which also means that efficiency improvements due to be implemented under provisions within a new edition of Part L to be introduced in 2016 have been abolished. This leaves Part L 2013 to set the standards for the foreseeable future. The government intends to replace the Green Deal scheme with a simplified version that is promised to be more industry and consumer friendly, although details have yet to be made available. Ending onshore wind farm
subsidies brings into question the government’s support of other renewable energy technologies, especially rooftop solar power, elevating the risks associated with investing in these technologies. Meanwhile, the wisdom of scrapping zero carbon homes targets has been challenged by industry leaders. These announcements undermine confidence, deterring investors and innovators from developing long-term solutions to improve the energy efficiency of the UK built environment and decarbonise the energy infrastructure. The government stance appears to focus on reducing the cost of energy by increasing native oil and gas supplies (including controversial shale gas); a short-term fix, postponing the real challenges for the next government and possibly imposing environmental concerns onto the next generation. This stance is out of kilter with that of progressive businesses.
Publications in brief The free online version of the Robust Details handbook has been updated to reflect new guidance on flexible closers fitted in the external cavity, in line with the separating floors. n www.robustdetails.com RICS has published the Japanese knotweed and residential property 1st edition guidance note, which will assist homeowners, purchasers and lenders in making informed decisions on assessing and reporting the risk. n www.rics.org/jknotweed All RICS standards and guidance notes go through a public consultation, which remains open for one month. Members and non-members can contribute by logging their comments via iConsult. n www.rics.org/iconsult
Testing regime extended BSRIA has extended its scope of United Kingdom Accreditation Service to include laboratory-based acoustic testing for a range of heating, ventilating and air conditioning products. n www.bsria.org
Meanwhile, the longer term picture remains unchanged. The Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard comes into force in April 2018 and longer term targets such as the EU requirement for all new buildings to be nearly zero energy by 2020 and the UK’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 remain in place. But if left to find its own level without the stimulus of occupier preference, commercial drivers and regulation, that level might not be compatible with existing commitments to wider EU regulation. n www.rics.org/greendeal
Mat Lown is Partner and Head of Sustainability at Tuffin Ferraby Taylor LLP mlown@tftconsultants.com
Editorial group seeks new members New members from the public and private sector are invited to join the journal editorial advisory group. Please email your CV to Alan Cripps, RICS Associate Director of Built Environment. n acripps@rics.org
Journal goes interactive Your RICS Building Control Journal is now available as an interactive page-turning digital reader. Ideal for reading on a tablet or desktop, it allows you to ‘clip’ and share articles and is compatible with android or iOS mobile devices. Once signed in, just go to your usual journal home page and click on the link or follow the link from your regular email alert.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 5
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
ZERO CARBON
Dave Mitchell offers his view of the government’s energy efficiency announcements
A logical step?
T
he government may well have effectively ended its predecessor’s flagship energy efficiency retrofit programme but it has said it will keep energy efficiency standards under review (see p5 and http://bit.ly/1ejkSwX). It recognises that the existing measures to increase the energy efficiency of new buildings should be allowed time to become established. While a surprise, and most certainly not welcomed by all, not least the renewable energy sector, from another perspective it can be seen as a fairly logical and pragmatic step. When the zero carbon journey started in 2006, it would be fair to say no-one really understood what the vision of a self-contained zero carbon housing supply entailed – or how practical this might be at scale in an affordable way that met consumer wishes. We have certainly been on a long journey since.
Zero Carbon Hub The work of the Zero Carbon Hub, which was established back in 2008 to take day-to-day operational responsibility for achieving the government’s target of delivering zero carbon homes, has been crucial (see p18.) The Hub has worked with both government and industry to raise standards and reduce the risks associated with implementing policy. It has been successful in getting
k Energy spend for newbuild compared to Victorian houses people from all sides of the debate to truly understand the process, including housebuilders, suppliers and, most importantly, the purchasers of new homes. Through the Hub’s work, it was established that it would not be practical or affordable for all new homes to be literally zero carbon on a self-contained basis.That led to the development of the idea for Allowable Solutions as offsite mitigation, which at the time made perfect sense. But things change, and there have been many practical issues to grapple with over the years, and indeed many that still need addressing. Policy needs to reflect the changing environment.
Fabric efficiency standards The critical point is that 2013 fabric efficiency standards have brought
The government recognises that the existing measures to increase the energy efficiency of new buildings should be allowed time to become established 6 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
Image © Zero Carbon Hub
us a long way, to the limits of what is practically replicable at scale. It is a major achievement that will deliver significant energy bill savings compared to earlier standards. There is still work to do. We need to carry through work stemming from the Hub’s Performance Gap report of summer 2014, and reduce the as built versus design differences. Issues around potential overheating and ventilation also need addressing. These may not be eye-catching politically, but they are key to ensuring we deliver the best possible product for customers in a reliable way. So, looked at from this perspective, the government’s announcement is a pragmatic recognition both of the substantial progress made and the need for public policy to work with the grain of what is practically deliverable. Interestingly enough, perhaps the EU may have got this about right in with its objective of near zero energy buildings in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. b Dave Mitchell is Technical Director at Home Builders Federation www.hbfco.uk
INTER NATIO NA L
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
Onur Gunduru describes how a development in Izmir has been designed to mitigate earthquake risk and embrace sustainability
Learning from disaster
O
n 17 August 1999, an earthquake of momentous magnitude 7.4 occurred on the North Anatolian Fault Zone, with its epicentre near the town of Gölcük in western Turkey. At least 17,118 people were killed and nearly 50,000 injured. In addition, about 500,000 people were left homeless, with nearly 250,000 buildings damaged. Subsequently, the event marked a milestone in the recent history of the building sector in Turkey. A nationwide renovation programme was introduced and the demand for safer building increased. The government also introduced new laws and regulations, leading the way for privatisation of the building control services in 19 pilot cities. In Izmir, which is located in the same fault zone, the lessons were taken on board in the 35. Sokak (35th Street) development. In view of the earthquake risk, the structure and the foundations gain more importance. To determine soil characteristics, 80 boreholes were drilled, with at least two for each block. After exploration, it was found out that the foundation settlement would be on limestone and two types of soil were defined as Z1-A and Z2-B, according to Turkish specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones.
The developer, Aksan Yapi, explains that local soil groups are defined as A, B, C and D (Table 6.1) and Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 (Table 6.2) depending on the thickness of upper soil layer (h1). Type A soil is determined at the depth up to 15m and type B soil at depths below 15m. Type A indicates that the soil has shear wave velocity equal or greater than 700m/s and B type indicates a shear wave velocity between 300-700m/s. Under each block, bearing capacity is calculated at between 15.5-44.4tonf/m2. As a result, foundation design is based on the weaker result Z2-B at 35th Street.
Resistant design The design takes account of the sloping topography and the foundations have a graded structure. Earthquake resistance is also improved by selecting a lightweight steel-frame structure, which imposes less loading than concrete. And due to factory production, the margin of error in building components is minimised, making assembly easier. 35th Street aims to connect city and countryside. Houses open on to large shared yards instead of small gardens. Six types of houses offer one, two or three bedrooms plus living room, and the complex has a secure pedestrian area, a walking trail and a cycle path. Car parks are located underground to eliminate vehicle pollution.
35. Sokak represents the new building understanding in Turkey Seref Gunduru, Chief Executive at Avrasya Building Controlling and Consultancy, states: “We wish to increase the number of such sustainable projects to minimise the effect of earthquake and present a higher living standard for a better future. 35. Sokak represents the new building understanding in Turkey.” Based on the energy performance certification, the low environmental impact of the project was a priority. Currently, the online BEP-TR tool is used to handle all stages of the certification. However, limitations of this software result in a lower performance for green buildings, and a new version is being developed.
BREEAM certificate 35th Street is the first residential project to receive a BREEAM Very Good certificate in Turkey. The photovoltaic solar
electricity system generates 400,000kWh energy annually, reducing carbon emissions by 290 tonnes each year. In addition, use of low zero carbon technologies such as an air source heat pump replaces 376,000kWh of energy from other sources annually, sparing 272 trees. Energy-efficient white goods also contribute to savings. To ensure to health and wellbeing of building users, access to daylight is maximised. Prefabricated panels address the common problem of poor thermal performance due to bad craftsmanship. This results in predictable thermal behaviour and a better customer experience. The complex has 9.5ha of green space, with facilities including basketball and tennis courts, Olympic-sized pools, a sauna, a Turkish bath, a day nursery, a library, and organic vegetable and fruit gardens. b
Onur Gunduru is Building Control Services Manager at Avrasya onur.gunduru@avrasya.as
Related competencies include Construction, technology and environmental services
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 7
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
DIVERSITY
Sophie Smith outlines her part in the campaign to attract more women into the profession
Inspiring others
A
s a young woman working in the surveying profession, I have been refreshed and enthused by the surge in publicity addressing diversity and social inclusion in the profession over the past year (see Building Control Journal September/October). With only 13% of RICS membership female (15% in the UK), the need for change is clear. This was voiced by the 2014 President Louise Brooke Smith, the first woman to hold the post in the organisation’s 144-year history. “Chartered surveying is a globally recognised profession and we must ensure that it is open to all, whatever their background, or gender. We are a proud industry, but have lagged behind others in terms of making the most of a diverse workforce,” she said. Attracting more women is high on RICS’ agenda, in the shape of the Surveying the Future campaign. This was hugely influential for me, launching at a time when I was making important career path decisions in my final year of BSc (Hons) building surveying at the University of the West of England on day release, while working full time in the profession. Not only did it inspire me to aim for chartered status and take on the APC as soon as I graduated, but it also encouraged me to promote the profession to other women.
Diversity campaign The campaign gives recognition to the need for social inclusion in the profession and gives a framework of how this can be done. This includes: bb national press coverage bb social media hashtags bb targeting schools bb women on panels bb Visible Women lunches 8 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
k Sophie Smith (left) and Lana, a young girl aspiring to enter the profession bb accessing national career events bb mentoring schemes.
Clear direction on diversity
It has taken a lot of hard work by RICS to organise and prepare women to join panels at often short notice. This ensures both men and women are seen as the face of the profession, thus hopefully inspiring girls to step forward. The result is a wide group of men and women engaged and supporting the campaign within RICS and beyond. This can be as simple as tweeting, using the hashtag #surveyingthefuture when approaching the local press for publicity. There is no limit to spreading the word. Coverage in the national and regional media has had a positive and important impact, showing that building surveying is a career for both sexes. My contribution to this is a weekly column in my local newspaper, the Gloucestershire Echo. I have also spoken about getting more women into the profession on BBC’s The One Show; BBC 2’s The planners and Channel 4’s Come dine with me. It was amazing how many men and women approached me afterwards about possible career opportunities. I have also been working with UK company Amblers Safety to design a female-friendly safety shoe, to be worn in the office as well as on site.
Encouraging greater diversity in the profession is a great way of driving innovation and variety. However, it is important to recognise that this is not just a challenge for RICS but also for the built environment as a whole. In 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission set up the Construction Leadership Diversity Forum to provide a clear direction on equality and diversity issues within the construction industry. But in the built environment, women still only make up 13% of the total UK workforce (http://bit.ly/1PDfiU0). Taking part in one of many Visible Women lunches, run by RICS to discuss how to attract more women, reinforced to me as a young professional both the rich variety of job choices available and the importance RICS places on addressing this gender gap. The benefits to becoming a surveyor include: bb diverse range of job choices bb combination of technical and practical skills bb opportunities to change career paths bb flexible working bb an environment of continuous learning bb high job satisfaction bb office based and on site. Image © Jt photographic
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
k A group of women surveyors on the RICS headquarters roof in 1978 Career history I have always had a keen interest in the built environment and had a great curiosity in how buildings have developed over history. Although I was aware there were not many women in the profession, it did not scare me. Studying at Gloucestershire College for a HNC in construction while working, I was the only female in a class of 30. I started my career in building control, which enabled me to learn and understand good building practice. I saw many different building types and application in a short period of time, which helped me to develop my body of knowledge very quickly. After four years, I took a step into contract
management in the housing sector, where I was able to combine my skills from building control with building surveying, budget and contract management, thus further building on my knowledge. After graduating from the University of West England in July, I am now able to begin the APC. With a degree and eight years’ relevant experience I can follow the 12-month diary route and have enrolled for next November’s interviews. I have taken steps to create a training agreement with my employer and have had the support and advice of South West RICS Training Adviser Steve Rea to explain the process. Behaving in line with the five ethical standards has stood out throughout my conversations
with other members and RICS advisers on what it means to be a professional. I joined my local RICS Matrics group to meet practitioners from different backgrounds. For example, my day-to-day role contrasts greatly from land and valuation surveyors and the group allows us to have a better understanding of the wider industry and careers, along with reading the various RICS journals. The local group has been brilliant at meeting training needs, with APC training for example having a turnout of more than 30 budding candidates. The success in attracting women to the profession can only truly be measured over the long term by assessing the next generation’s career choices. It requires the support of all members to drive change collaboratively across the industry to ensure we attract and retain the very best talent. b
Sophie Smith is Contracts Officer at Stroud District Council sophie.smith@stroud.gov.uk
Future proof homes
C
Paul Knight discusses the eco-credentials of new houses in Kent hecking that new buildings comply with Building Regulation is a routine task for building control bodies. But for Quadrant Building Control’s recent inspection of an exclusive development of five eco-friendly houses in the Kent village of Meopham the thermal standards far exceeded the current standards required by the Building Regulations. The two- and four-bedroom detached houses in Windmill Close were built by Cedar Rydal in partnership with Swedish company Trivselhus, which has developed innovative methods of construction – Trivselhus roughly translates as ‘house of wellbeing’. Trivselhus doors and windows arrive on site as triple-glazed,
argon-filled units within the completed wall panel. Service conduits for electricity and plumbing are also included in the build at the factory stage so no holes need to be drilled in the walls or floors on site. These features are aimed at minimising construction time while ensuring that the occupants do not experience draughts and energy loss. Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery achieves good air quality and no wasted warmth. In the Meopham houses, heating and hot water are supplied by a high-efficiency gas condensing boiler with a hot water storage cylinder and radiators. This results in homes that are very thermally efficient, require low heating loads and provide a clean, fresh and comfortable internal environment insulated from external noise. But what raises the Trivselhus above the standard is future proofing;
maximising the building’s thermal insulation to allow improvements to be easily added. Some 240mm of mineral wool insulation is built into the closed panels of the house at factory stage, which provides a highly insulated layer. Photovoltaic solar panels and a solar thermal system could then be installed at a later date for further reductions in water heating bills, for which government subsidies, feed in tariffs and Renewable Heat Incentives are still available. b Paul Knight is a Director at Quadrant Building Control enquiries@quadrantai.co.uk
Related competencies include Sustainability
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 9
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
F LO O D I N G
The UK’s first amphibious house is leading the way in flood-resistant design, as Richard Coutts explains
Rise of the new
C
urrently, there are more than five million UK properties at risk of flooding and rising sea and river levels could threaten many more over the next 100 years, with a major cost impact on homes and businesses. One innovative solution may be amphibious construction, with homes resting on fixed foundations but able to float up in the event of flooding. The UK’s first amphibious house has been built on a small island in the River Thames in Buckinghamshire, classified as Flood Zone 3b, the functional floodplain. The initial option of a floating property with the adjacent garden in the river course was not favoured by the Environment Agency. An elevated building would sit high enough to avoid an extreme flood but would be divorced from the garden. An amphibious house solves these issues by allowing occupants to enjoy their garden, only rising to avoid floods when necessary. Construction starts with a wet dock formed from steel sheet piling and a reinforced concrete ring beam retaining the top edges of the piles. A permeable concrete slab forms the base of the dock and retains the bottom edge of the sheet piling. The slab is supported by concrete piles driven into the ground and carries the weight of the building during dry conditions.
Cut-away construction section
Roof light
Gulley and guidepost
Details Zinc rainskin cladding
The concrete ring beam is cast adjacent to the can-float base to create an overlap in the structure and minimise the amount of debris entering the dock. Some siltation is inevitable, so the base is profiled to create a void under the house, which can be flushed out from time to time.
Buoyancy fix The can-float base functions similarly to the hull of a ship. It provides the building’s buoyancy and supports the structural frame of the dwelling, formed from reinforced waterproof concrete to protect from water ingress. The foundation is designed to be heavy enough to prevent crabbing and impact damage, while sufficient in volume and light enough in mass to provide buoyancy. The dwelling is set between four galvanised steel ‘dolphins’. A bespoke running mechanism fixed between the house and guideposts will facilitate smooth vertical movement as the house
The base is designed to be heavy enough to prevent crabbing and impact damage and light enough to provide buoyancy 10 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
Can-float foundation junction with guidepost
Details
rises and falls. The dolphins hold the house true and level against the river current during a flood. Flexible services connect the house with the land. Insulated and flexible pipes run along the side of the house within the wet dock to pump wastewater into a treatment tank. Designed to cope with the predicted extreme (1 in 100) flood level now and in 100 years’ time, the contemporary dwelling comes complete with open living space around a double-height space overlooked by the gallery master bedroom. The glazed south-facing facade gives panoramic views of the river and an attractive and functional riverside garden. High-performance insulation and double-glazing reduces heating demand of the house, with a heat recovery ventilation system adds to energy savings. External louvres shade the building from the southern sun. The riverside garden includes a number of terraces stepping down to the water’s edge, which will incrementally flood when the river rises up its banks, containing the floods in predetermined spaces. This allows residents to be more conscious of their natural environment and in turn raises their awareness of flood risk. An 8m buffer zone, required by planning, provides ecological continuity Images © Baca Architects
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL Timber and steel frame The house is been built on an island in the Thames
Timber and steel frame
n junction
Can-float foundation and guideposts Can-float foundation and guideposts
Wet dock accessway Wet dock accessway and protects the character of the riverside setting.
Overcoming obstacles The challenge of a moving house is in the servicing and utilities, and there are a number of o bstacles to bringing forward flood-resilient typologies. These include an absence of statutory guidance building standards with regard to stability and buoyancy, as well as approved construction techniques for displacement and hybrid flotation units. Uncertainty of the whole life performance (and the standards to which they should be built) has raised questions with funders, warrantors and mortgage providers, hampering the realisation of projects. Two variables impact the whole life performance of floating and amphibious buildings more significantly than static buildings. The first is the wear and tear of movement on connection details, in particular to the external envelope and services, and the potential corrosion from permanent immersion in water. The second is the impact of climatic changes such as increased flood frequency, intensity of rainfall, wind loading and overheating. Like any machine with moving parts, such buildings require regular maintenance and monitoring. Some floating properties in the Netherlands have shown signs of substantial
corrosion, listing and abandonment due to poor consideration of the whole life performance. Lack of clear structural standards, poor maintenance and lack of routine monitoring has the potential to result in (avoidable) catastrophic failure. The Thameside house is designed to allow both visual inspection of the key parts and physical testing. During construction, the house was tested after the can-float base had been completed to test the integrity of the hull, watertightness, balancing and the running gear, then again once the upper frame and fit-out was completed, to rebalance the system. The wet dock is accessible from both ends of the building and a walkway around the entire can-float base allows visual inspection, replacement of parts (if required) and jet cleaning of the dock to remove siltation should it occur. Once a year, the dock will be pumped full of water to repeat the flotation test; the house will be elevated to 50cm to test the integrity and free movement, before the water is slowly released and the building allowed to touch down again.
Part M accessibility The island on which the amphibious house is located is only accessible via a narrow canal lock that restricts access by wheelchair. The Environment Agency also requires that a flood management plan is in place, linked to an early warning system for evacuate in the event of a flood. Because the case was betterment, the scheme was granted dispensation for wheelchair users. Nonetheless, other newbuild schemes – including amphibious houses in the Netherlands – have been designed to provide continuous access in the event of a flood, in combination with elevated walkways and access points for emergency services.
Amphibious construction is a new phenomenon internationally, and thus there are limited examples. In the US is Brad Pitt’s Make it Right scheme in New Orleans, built following hurricane Katrina, while Maasbommel in Holland has 32 units and Thailand has half a dozen units. While the Dutch have produced guidance in respect of stability and buoyancy, these are not fully developed NTAs – the Dutch Standardisation Institute’s equivalent of British Standards. An equivalent does not exist in the UK. To comply with planning and building regulations, standard components from different construction sectors were tried and tested and appropriated for use on the amphibious house. This was frustrating, time consuming and stifled innovation. There is clearly a vacuum to be filled. An addendum to BR 2015 to incorporate regulations for domestic floating and displacement structures or an equivalent of Robust Details, Part E (Sound resistance) for such building typologies would enable this emerging sector to flourish. In future, we envisage large communities that are holistically planned with improved preparedness for flooding and climate change. Dwellings will be low carbon, and organised around multifunctional landscapes that will help control surface water flooding or act as large flood storage areas. New communities will be made up of floodresilient dwellings located on the highest ground, with amphibious homes in the transitional zones between development and the natural environment. The planning system, supported by common standards, has a critical role in delivering this vision with the potential to provide safe development, simultaneously address land availability and act as a catalyst for emerging construction industries. b Richard Coutts is Director at Baca Architects rcoutts@baca.uk.com
Related competencies include Construction, technology and environmental services
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 11
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
BUILDING CONTROL CHANGE
Paul Everall looks at the way that different councils are dealing with the increasing squeeze on services
Model answers
L
ocal authorities have been under increasing pressure on their finances and resources for the past seven years, since the UK was caught up in the severe economic crisis. The amount of financial support from government has been reduced significantly, and there are both political and legal constraints about how much they can increase their demands on their populations each year. As LABC Chief Executive, I can see just how much strain this is putting on all the services local authorities provide. Many authorities – including the one where I live in West Dorset – are currently reviewing everything they do to see whether they can continue to provide all of the same services. Some are considering whether they should abandon all but the services they are legally obliged to provide. In my view this would be very sad, because surely functions such as community planning are important to their constituents, even if the local authority does not provide the services itself. All the signs are that the financial squeeze on councils will continue. In theory, this should matter less to building control than for many other services. After all, building control is supposed to be self-financing, with the costs of checking plans and carrying out site inspections, together with office overheads, balanced by the fees charged to those undertaking building work. However, with some councils imposing a blanket ban on recruitment, if there is an increase in building control applications, no additional staff can be taken on. 12  NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
Salary cuts Some authorities have gone as far as to impose substantial salary cuts on their staff, even in building control which generates income. This can have a very damaging effect on staff morale, driving them to look for jobs elsewhere. And because building control is subject to direct competition from the private sector through approved inspectors, there are often building control jobs available locally for disaffected staff. So what can teams do to improve the situation? And what is LABC doing to assist them? Over the past 30 years, many people have said to me that when local government was last reorganised, it was a pity that building control was not made a county function with hubs in each of the constituent districts. This would have had the advantage of unified management with the ability to switch resources to where the most building work is being carried out. While I can well understand the desire of district councils to retain the building control function, as the squeeze on resources has tightened some authorities are down to a handful of staff. In such circumstances, it is difficult to meet high standards of ensuring compliance and maintain expertise on all the technical issues covered by the Building Regulations. Therefore, although there seems little appetite for a new government-led initiative to reorganise local government again, we are seeing a growing trend of local authority building control teams working together to allocate resources where they are most needed. At its simplest, this is just a voluntary agreement between the councils, but a number have entered more formal arrangements.
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
Trading company
As the organisation set up by local authorities to represent them and help them progress, LABC has spent considerable time working with councils on alternative models. Earlier this year, we commissioned consultants to review the options available and to provide guidance on how a business case for change can be made. The results are now being rolled out to local authorities.
Partner scheme One mechanism developed by LABC is the Partner Authority Scheme, whereby an architect or agent can have all their plans checked for compliance by their preferred authority, which will be accepted by the council in whose jusidiction the building work is to take place. This scheme is very popular and councils now have some 3,000 partners. This year we have extended it to allow local authorities to carry out site inspections in another council’s area where this is requested by the latter, perhaps because of temporary staff shortages or for other reasons. And a number of local authorities ask a council with more capacity to carry out their plan checking for them. But in addition to informal arrangements, some councils have introduced stronger forms of shared service working. This has a number of advantages, allowing resources to be distributed most effectively, and allowing the fees charged to be rationalised throughout the combined area. It is often a criticism from architects and agents that fees vary between neighbouring authorities.
In deciding any new arrangement, one factor to be borne in mind is how certain statutory functions generally provided by building control teams continue to be provided effectively Image © LABC
Another route is for one or more local authorities to set up a local authority trading company. This is similar to any private company, but the local authority is the sole shareholder. The building control manager reports to a board of directors, which sets financial targets and generally oversees the performance of the company. The advantages of this arrangement are similar to those of a joint committee, but with the added protection from financial pressures. In the past couple of years, such companies have also been able to apply to become approved inspectors, although as yet only two have completed the process successfully. Acivico, set up by Birmingham City Council, is a good example of this arrangement. Another option considered by some authorities, with encouragement from the government, is the establishment of a public sector mutual. This is defined as “an organisation that has left the public sector, which continues to deliver public services, and has staff control embedded within the running of the organisation” (http://bit.ly/1Mwb7rS). However, there are a number of problems with this option, and so far there are no examples of it working successfully in the building control field. Outsourcing the service to a private sector company is a possibility. A big issue here is attracting such a company, given that making a profit from providing building control services is not permitted by law. However, this can work where building control is outsourced as a part of a much larger package of services, such as planning and environmental health, where making surpluses is allowed. In such cases, the resources of a well-managed company with good professional expertise can be used effectively in the local authority area. Capita has done this for a number of councils. In deciding any new arrangement, one factor that has to be borne in mind is how certain statutory functions generally provided by building control teams, such as inspecting dangerous structures, continue to be provided effectively. While recognising the excellent work done by many approved inspectors, LABC is determined to ensure that our member councils retain as much of the market share as possible. This is because we genuinely believe that the protection of the health and safety of the public, and increasingly the sustainability of our country, is best delivered by public sector bodies that are not there to make a commercial profit. b
Paul Everall is Chief Executive at LABC paul.everall@labc.co.uk
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 13
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
BUILDING CONTROL CHANGE
Trevor Clement describes the impact of market changes on local authority building control
Keeping an open mind
T
he first rumble of tectonic plates in the world of building control that I personally witnessed was back in 1984 when Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to amend the Building Act. The aim was to open up the market to private sector organisations to oversee building works for conformity with national Building Regulations. The warranty provider NHBC subsequently blazed the trail as the first of many to register as approved inspectors to deal with new housing. At the time, there were many who predicted that public sector building control was headed the way of the dinosaurs. I took the view that this gradual opening up of our service was a positive development, bringing the stimulus of a bit of competition. While some were slow to react (or did not react at all), many dynamic managers, my own included, believed strongly in the ethos of a non-commercial function and need for a continuing public service. 14 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
There was concern that the introduction of fee competition and profit margins would have a negative effect on the service and thus construction standards. Rather than passively awaiting the outcome, they rose to meet the private sector challenge and started to equip themselves with the marketing resources needed. LABC raised its game, established a national brand and for the first time started to use the word ‘customers’. Since that time, I have witnessed a gradual but continuous improvement in professionalism and efficiency. The officious and obstructive attitudes that were sometimes in evidence during the early years of my career decreased. While the cowboys still warranted ‘special attention’, there was a lot more satisfaction to be found in assisting clients to achieve compliance with the regulations rather than looking to catch them out when they erred. Nationally, regionally and locally, LABC managers started to work together to make positive changes and offer a consistent and convenient service.
Partner authorities I saw type approvals on repeated designs accepted around the country followed by the revolutionary partner authority scheme. In this ground-breaking initiative, the District Surveyors Association (now LABC) somehow managed to achieve unanimous agreement on decisions made by partner authorities to approve or reject applications anywhere in England and Wales. This bold initiative has been a key asset to LABC, as many delighted partnered companies choose to get all their schemes in England and Wales checked by a selected local authority office. Partnering was brought in to counter the private sector advantage of offering a ‘one stop shop’. A similarly effective strategy was the development of the LABC New Homes Warranty to match competitors’ ability to offer linked services of building control and latent defects insurance. This has been a key asset in retaining and winning back some housebuilders’ custom. Today, the LABC service portfolio has developed to include a building product
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
The standard of Building Regulations supervision overall has been raised immeasurably assessment (system approval) scheme and industry linked services such as air leakage testing, acoustics, fire risk assessment and engineering and energy calculations. From that first pioneer NHBC dealing only with housing, there are now 90 approved inspector companies registered with the Construction Industry Council and dealing with every type of controlled building project.
Sea change Until relatively recently, private sector players had generally focused on mass housebuilding and the more lucrative commercial schemes. Over recent years, however, and with the increase in competition, I have seen a sea change with companies actively seeking to make business from the smallest domestic extensions, loft conversions and alterations. In my experience, this is the sector where proportionally far more contraventions and problems with poor standards are encountered. It is also where LABC inspection regimes have traditionally offered an incidental basic level of quality control to the benefit of the homeowners. I have also noted the bizarre scenario where some small builders add building control to the design and build package they offer potential customers. Their clients are often oblivious to alternative choices and levels of service available. It is no surprise to find that is often the builder that warrants a high level of supervision that will tie itself to the type of AI company, which will leave them to get on unfettered by the inconvenience of scrutiny. More than once I have stumbled across a fire trap of a loft conversion carried out by inept builders supposedly controlled by such a company.
I have already made it clear that I am very much pro-competition in building control. I have no issue with the majority of private sector firms that act ethically in providing a service and many respected former colleagues have ‘gone over to the dark side’ without compromising their professional integrity. While I still believe in the local authority ethic that service should be ‘not for profit’, using the ‘user pays’ principle I accept that the standard of Building Regulations supervision overall has been raised immeasurably during the 35 years I have been in the job. In that time, the scope and complexity of the regulations have expanded from a little white booklet to a 250mm stack of legislation and Approved Documents. It concerns me to see work lost to companies that hide behind ‘risk assessment’ to justify using very little resource to supervise the smaller schemes reaping healthy profit margins. Such shoddy performers do not bother with any formal approval of plans and make a single check on a foundation excavation, only carrying out a second when the job is complete if requested to do so by the owner or builder.
Photos Another trend is to accept photos in substitute for proper ‘safety boots on the ground’ site inspections. A photo will only show what the taker wants you to see and to my mind is usually nigh on useless as a sound basis for approving a construction stage or element. I wonder how the checking surveyor can even tell that the photo is of the project being considered. For a checker based 250km away from the job though, it is certainly convenient and cost effective. I am not saying that LABC does not have any poor performers in its midst, but for me it is worse when there is underlying financial motivation. In Hertfordshire and many other counties, local authority providers have to adapt. We have an ageing demographic, yet with the legacy of under-investment in training we are finding it harder to plug the gaps as experienced surveyors hang up their hard hats. The typical corporate local authority mindset, distracted by the ever-present need to cut costs, finds it hard to
understand the market factors we operate within and the need to offer a competitive market rate package to recruit and retain good staff. Such short sightedness can result in the breakdown of once efficient services, bringing with it dissatisfied staff and customers, proportionally high operating costs and risks to public health and safety.
Larger organisations The answer seems to be to operate as larger, more resilient organisations serving multiple authorities. The autonomy of such outsourced organisations allows for more constructive policy decisions and business strategies. It gives the benefit of improved marketing, training and staff progression and makes it possible to have in-house specialism such as structural engineering, fire engineering and energy assessment. It also means that qualified and experienced surveyors can feel properly valued and suitably rewarded for good performance. And to please the ‘bean counters’, economies of scale realise secondary financial benefits. I have never regretted the decision to work in building control. I have acknowledged the great improvements in efficiency and professionalism that emanated from that political decision back in 1982 but also noted a negative side that has echoes of the early doom mongers’ predictions. Competition has had a positive effect but it needs to be in conjunction with robust regulation and a reasonable degree of scrutiny of the people trusted to regulate. In our industry, errors made may lie dormant for years before the unusual circumstances occur that test the robustness of the building, be it a fire or a hurricane. Sadly, it often takes disasters to stimulate the interest to belatedly try to put things right. It is time for the public sector to raise its game to stay in business. I hope we can find the dynamic leaders in our midst so that LABC can continue to give the private sector a run for its money. b Trevor Clements is Building Control Manager at East Herts Building Control trevor.clements@eastherts.gov.uk
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 15
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
BUILDING CONTROL CHANGE
Joining forces
F
Tracy Aarons discusses the benefits and difficulties in developing partnerships to supply services
For local authorities, the pressures of the competitive market and economic recession have seen income reducing, yet the corporate burden they have to bear as a public body has limited their ability to reduce overheads. Add to this mix the fact that councils cannot turn business away, while most private suppliers actively target the less resource heavy, more financially beneficial major projects. The result is that to cut costs, single authorities have little option other than cut staff numbers. Many authorities now find themselves at a point where ongoing resilience is threatened and the long-term ability of their organisation to provide a safe and effective service is questionable. The government view is that councils will need to join forces to make efficiencies through economies of scale and develop wider skills to compete against the private sector, or face an increasing burden on the public purse. Taking this message on board, Mendip District Council
began discussions with neighbouring authorities with a view to developing a partnership. The medium-sized rural local authority has seen its building control staff numbers reduce over the years. The business case developed underlined the benefits of such an approach, with financial savings to trading accounts, efficiencies in service delivery providing an improved service and better career development, and opportunities for staff. It also showed there were minimal additional risks to those already carried by each partner alone, and these could be addressed through effective legal agreements between partners. Six authorities were involved in the initial discussions, although this dropped to four despite the identified business benefits. However, even with an agreement in principle, two years on the partnership is still not up and running, with full transition expected from 1 April 2016. Reviewing why this has taken so long, a number of factors stand out.
Risk aversion The Localism Act 2011 was intended to free local authorities to become more businesslike in their activities and allow them to make decisions they believe to be beneficial to their residents. This should have enabled the formation of building control partnerships, the creation of arm’s-length companies to support these and allowed for quicker development of such concepts. However, the act did not account for the innate risk aversion of many councils and the fear of accountability. The nature of Building Regulation fee income puts councils at the mercy of the economy, approved inspectors and clients’ view of the council, which is generally contact with planning officers. Since this is sometimes perceived as a bad experience, it can lead to a knock on negative view of building control. The building control team has limited influence on these three areas and when a service is in house councils generally accept that it is difficult to manage these risks to fee income. Interestingly though, the moment a
In local government the governance process can be interminably long
16 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
partnership is mooted, officials want assurances that in a partnership fee income will be controlled. In my own experience of such discussions, officers have cited a partnership as being too risky in case an economic downturn sees fee income drop and it sustains a loss. At the same time, officers have ignored the possibility that the same downturn would see the individual council’s fee income dropping and having to bear any loss without resilience to address the matter.
Governance processes In the commercial world, a decision on the formation of a new business is based on the viability of the business case produced. If the potential is demonstrated, the company board will support implementation and look for prompt action. In local government, the governance process can be interminably long and require approval from myriad committees within each partner organisation. Critically, decisions to support or refuse the creation of the partnership can be made on a wide range of reasons that have nothing to do with the business benefits. It may be that they do not like other councils that are part of the partnership. It could be that they want their own council officers to run
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
services in their own buildings and see a new partnership as something they will have less control over. It can even be that some have not read the business case and therefore make a decision based on the loudest assertions made by others on the committee, regardless of their accuracy. In truth, to be approved, any proposed partnership has to run the full length of each council’s democratic process. Their actions need to be open, inclusive and transparent so that taxpayers can be sure their money is being used correctly, but this does mean that decision making can take a long time and be open to random influences. In most circumstances, I would argue that the difference between this democratic decision-making process and businesses’ commercial imperative is appropriate because they have different organisational drivers. In the case of building control though, the Building Act 1984 changed its role, meaning it functions like a commercial business but, in Image © Vital Voice and Data
the case of local authority building control, it does so within an organisation whose drivers are not commercial. This does not always lead to smooth and effective decision making.
Support services The nature of local authority building control is that it must carry out specific duties that the private sector is not required to fund. These include matters such as dangerous structures and demolitions, as well as enforcement activities. These cannot be funded from fees, and are known as ‘non fee earning’ costs. Under Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) guidance, the costs of these duties must be recorded separately to ‘trading account’ activities. But in practical terms the resources and systems supporting these activities will be the same as those supporting the trading account as well as other services within the council. Under CIPFA rules, the resources being carried out
for the trading account will be paid by fees, thus reducing the amount the council has to corporately fund. As a consequence, when a partnership is formed and the need to provide support services is centralised, each council loses a significant external contribution to its corporate services that it then has to fund internally if it cannot release the unused resources. Because the resource is people (e.g. 0.3 full time equivalent (fte) of an accountant, 0.2 fte of a personnel officer) they are not easily released and so the council has to be willing to ‘carry’ the loss until it can be redeployed or released through natural wastage. In less financially pressured times, councils were able to
make these decisions, recognising the benefits that would be gained for customers, and had the ability to take the financial hit in the short term. In the current climate, every penny counts and rapidly shrinking budgets mean that this loss of support service can be seen as an unacceptable barrier by the key finance officer. Mendip is actively working to navigate ways through these and other difficulties, but the pace can be frustrating. Talking to other partnerships, there is no magic bullet and as a consequence everyone has been created slightly differently. Perhaps we need to look at developing a replicable model for partnership that can be easily applied in the future. b
Tracy Aarons is Corporate Manager for Built Environment at Mendip District Council tracy.aarons@mendip.gov.uk
Related competencies include Business planning
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 17
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
ZERO CARBON
Rob Parnell examines the shift in emphasis in the quest for zero carbon homes
Hitting the target
T
he Zero Carbon Hub is responsible for reducing obstacles and managing risks on the journey to energy efficiency. The industry and government partnership was established in 2008 to develop an evidence-based approach for the implementation of the large-scale delivery of low and zero energy homes in the UK. It also disseminates research findings and recommendations. With industry wide collaboration, the Hub has identified processes that increase commercial viability, in order to deliver the 200,000 homes needed every year to address the current shortage in the UK. In addition to increasing the energy efficiency of newbuild homes, the Hub has also addressed the associated challenges for the industry of meeting energy-efficient targets. These include the impact on housebuilding costs – both volume and small and medium-sized companies, the potential risks related to indoor air quality and overheating, and identifying and closing the gap in the designed versus as built energy performance of new homes.
Government policy The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 mandated an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, with 1990 levels as the baseline. The Zero Carbon Hub’s role was to take day-to-day operational responsibility of the government’s zero carbon buildings policy. This policy required that all new homes built in the UK be zero carbon from 2016, and new non-domestic buildings from 2019. The domestic target was considered one of the most progressive in Europe, coming well in advance of the EU’s 2020 Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD). As the main European legislative instrument for improving the energy 18 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
efficiency of both domestic and non-domestic buildings, a major component of the EPBD is its requirement for nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs). It states that: “From 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero energy buildings; and after 31 December 2018 all new buildings owned by public authorities are nearly zero energy buildings”. NZEBs are defined in Article 2 as a “building that has a very high energy performance…The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced on-site or nearby” (see Figure 1). While the broad NZEB definition allows member states to determine standards within their own geographical and metrological circumstances, it requires them to periodically report their methodologies and approaches, explaining both the logic and processes behind their reported targets and national plans. The details of these plans are outlined in criteria that require analysis relating to cost optimality, national
building stock mix and the life cycle of buildings.
From zero carbon to NZEBs In July, the newly elected UK government revised its zero carbon policy and announced that the UK would develop energy efficient homes in line with the EPBD, and therefore NZEB regulations. While the shift may seem daunting, the differences between zero carbon homes and NZEB standards are relatively modest, concerned largely with the report energy calculations and assumptions. The zero carbon homes policy was calculated through a three-stage definition (see Figure 2). This relied on: bb Fabric energy efficiency: measured in kWh/m2/year bb Carbon compliance: an assesement of regulated energy sources (heating, cooling, fixed lighting, pumps, fans and ventilation), measured in CO2 kg/m2/year bb Allowable solutions: which offset any remaining CO2 not met through offsite reduction methods – measured in £s. In contrast, NZEB performance is exclusively calculated in primary energy
Figure 1: A nearly zero energy building
Source Zero Carbon Hub
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
consumption units (kWh/m2/year), defined as all energy contained within all raw fuels and other energy input in the building. This measurment system was adopted by the EU as a common metric across the member states. This allows a direct comparison between the levels of performance of new buildings, of the various national plans (see Figure 3). Energy consumption and carbon emission units can be converted from one form to the other using appropriate factors, allowing the previous Zero Carbon Standard to be considered as part of the UK’s definition for domestic NZEBs.
Figure 2: The zero carbon triangle
Performance gap Regardless of the policy implemented – whether zero carbon or NZEB – meeting the targets is key. Research generated by the Hub and the housebuilding industry has demonstrated a significant ‘performance gap’ between the energy use of new homes asdesigned and once complete. If constructed homes require more energy than predicted at design, there is a risk to the UK’s energy reduction commitments. It may also result in higher than expected household energy bills, undermining buyer confidence in new low-energy homes. Initially, there was a misconception that the gap was simply caused by inaccuracies in energy modelling software and poor construction practice on site. However, Hub research has shown that a gap can be influenced at all stages of the housebuilding process, including design. There are a number of recurring themes: unclear allocation of responsibility, poor communication of information, and a lack of understanding, knowledge and skills. The Hub’s 2014 End of Term Report set out recommendations and solutions (http://bit.ly/1PyiTC8). These include improving energy literacy across the sector, with a certification scheme to demonstrate ability. Secondly, an industry owned and maintained Construction Details Scheme should be set up to provide assured, as-built energy performance for major building fabric junctions and systems. The housebuilding industry, with government support, must also create innovative and commercially viable
Source Zero Carbon Hub
Figure 3: Examples of proposed NZEBs
Source REHVA
methods to test and measure the energy use of completed homes, so that their actual performance can be known. The compliance regime needs to be strengthened, clearly indicating that it expects the industry to voluntarily tackle the performance gap without additional regulation, and provide key funding to stimulate action.
energy efficiency in newbuild homes. At today’s prices, the typical extra cost of building a semi-detached house could be less than £5,000 (based on Part L1A 2013), compared to £40,000 when the original zero carbon policy was first announced. b
Costs
>
Housebuilders and policy makers have commercial concerns about the potential additional cost of building energy efficient homes. In the eight years since the Hub was formed, there has been a consistent reduction in building costs to improve
More information www.zerocarbonhub.org Rob Parnell is Managing Director at the Zero Carbon Hubl rparnell@zerocarbonhub.org
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 19
RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL
PART Q
With new homes now subject to security standard regulation, Mick Reynolds describes the approval process
On the safe side
S
ecured by Design (SBD) is a national police initiative that aims to reduce burglary and other crime using the principles of good design and appropriate physical security. Since its origins in 1989, SBD has worked with the design, construction and security sectors to develop security standards for products within the built environment, with the aim of ‘designing in’ security features that are ‘invisible’. Developments and buildings that are given a SBD Award are inspected by specially trained police staff and consistently achieve large reductions in burglary (up to 75%), criminal damage, auto-crime and antisocial behaviour year-on-year.
New homes Since October 2015, the security of new homes is included, for the first time, in Building Regulations in England as Approved Document Q: Security – Dwellings (ADQ) (http://bit.ly/1PnKPud). Supporting guidance from SBD Approval – available in the recently published Secured by Design Homes 2015 – is designed to be used to discharge the requirements of the Building Regulation and ADQ. It is intended for planners, local authority building control officers, architects and developers. ADQ applies to all new dwellings, including those resulting from a change in use such as commercial premises, warehouse and barns undergoing conversions. It also applies within conservation areas. Security requirements are established in relation to doors, including those that are easily accessible or provide access in any of the following circumstances: bb doors at the entrance to a dwelling, including all doors to flats and apartments bb communal entrance doors to multi-occupancy developments bb garage doors where there is a connecting door giving access directly into the dwelling – the security requirement can be applied at either the connecting residential door or on the vehicle garage door, together with any pedestrian doorsets providing access. When applied to the vehicular garage door there is a lesser requirement for the inter-connecting door into the dwelling bb where bespoke timber doors are proposed, a technical specification in Appendix B must be met bb windows, in respect of ground floor, basement and other easily accessible locations bb rooflights. 2 0 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
Meeting standards The requirement is that the product must be shown to have been manufactured to a design that has been tested to an acceptable security standard (PAS 24:2012 or later versions, or similar). Compliance could be demonstrated in various forms, from the suppliers of the systems or the components used to manufacture the product. Evidence might also be a test report conducted on behalf of the product manufacturer or independent third-party certification. Appendix A of ADQ suggests that United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS)-accredited test facilities should “have the necessary expertise to conduct the relevant tests”. For many years, SBD has required that doors and windows are not only tested by the product manufacturer, but that independent third-party certification from a UKAS-accredited authority is in place. This requirement exceeds the requirements of ADQ. Independent third-party certification involves both initial and ongoing testing of the product, together with audits of both the production facility and the product to ensure consistency, with tangible benefits to the development and the home occupier.
RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL
Independent third-party certification involves both initial and then ongoing testing of the product
Without third-party certification to take account of any changes to the product components, the security standard or the manufacturing process, some products have been proven to fail in situ. SBD attributes the use of certified products to the consistently high reductions in crime that have been achieved, as verified by independent research studies. In contrast, to meet or exceed the requirements of ADQ, products that have been tested to PAS 24 or equivalent will require test results from either the test house or systems company to verify that they are compliant. Products that have been checked and licensed by SBD – or have been certified to the relevant standard by an independent third-party certification authority – are required to display permanent marking to that effect, making visual confirmation much simpler. A quick visit to the website will provide information on the standards to which the product has been certificated.
SBD Award Developments that meet all the criteria are applicable for a Secured by Design award, which has now been expanded to
include Gold, Silver and Bronze. To gain the Gold Award, the property has to achieve the requirements of ADQ and also show that the development layout and some ancillary security requirements, such as lighting and cycle storage, have been met. The Silver Award fully discharges the requirements of ADQ and, in addition, requires certification from independent third-party certification bodies. SBD Bronze is primarily for the refurbishment market but, where issued in respect of a new home with ‘bespoke’ products, it can also satisfy the requirements of ADQ. It is primarily the responsibility of the local authority building control department or bodies such as the National House Building Council, to confirm that new homes meet the requirements of ADQ. Where alternative evidence, such as one-off reports or data provided by systems or component suppliers, is provided, the building control officer will have to confirm (by visual inspection) that all of the components match that of the product supplied and installed on site. These can be numerous, especially in regards to doors. Any such changes can adversely affect how the product withstands an attack. Notes included in ADQ highlight the potential for problems when such evidence is supplied. If products do not match the security data supplied then delays may occur in Building Regulations approval. For developers that regularly build homes (and other buildings) to a similar design and specification in different locations, SBD has introduced the National Building Approval. A certificate is issued confirming that the doors, windows and rooflights specified for use within the development are of the required standard. The award is at Silver level and developers can extend this to Gold if the development also meets that standard. For building control officers, the task of ensuring that ADQ has been achieved is much simpler because they have the assurance that all products specified in the development are certificated to a standard exceeding that required. b
More information >
www.securedbydesign.com Mick Reynolds is a Senior Development Officer at Association of Chief Police Officers Secured by Design mick.reynolds@acpo-sbd.co.uk
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 2 1
RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN A L
A DV E RTI S I N G
CPD Foundation An annual subscription that’s easy, convenient and an affordable way to help achieve your formal CPD goals: • Easily record your CPD activity • Attend seminars held throughout the UK • Access up to 100 topics covering surveying for land, property and the built environment • Watch recorded seminars on demand at a time and place convenient to you.
Find out more at rics.org/cpdfoundation
20910-RICS-CPD Journal half-pg ad-174x127.5mm.indd 1
28/09/2015 12:51
Certificate in Building Information Modelling (BIM) – Project Management This course covers the entire BIM project lifecycle and provides you with detailed knowledge and the skills required to manage each step of the project. Learning Outcomes: •
Identify the business case for BIM in any project
•
How to create an EIR and BIM execution plan
•
Apply the processes and standards applicable to the management of information about an asset throughout its’ lifespan
•
Understand the technology and the common data environment that supports BIM.
To find out more contact RICS Training e training@rics.org t 024 7686 8584 w rics.org/bimcertificate
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 20355 RICS CERTIFICATE IN BIM ADVERT-174x127.5mm.indd 1
2 2 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015
16/03/2015 10:27
R IC S B U I L DI N G C ON T ROL J OU RNAL
OUR TEAM WAKE UP EACH DAY WITH THE INSPIRATION TO DO GREAT THINGS, AND GO HOME EACH EVENING FEELING FULFILLED WITH WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED…
Clarke Banks is a relationships driven Approved Inspector. We provide Independent Building Control services to all sectors within the construction industry. One of the fastest developing companies in the market at the
“
“
A DV E RTI S I N G
current time we are adding to our team. Candidates should have Building Control experience and possess technical diligence, effective communication skills and enjoy dealing with internal and external communication.
Current roles • 2 x Building Control Surveyors (Birmingham + Surrey) • 2 x Site Surveyor (Birmingham + Surrey) Competitive market salary and benefits package
If you feel you possess the skills and dedication to enhance our team please get in touch on 01932 508760 or hello@clarkebanks.com
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER Harwood Building Control Approved Inspectors Ltd Due to our continued growth we are seeking to appoint a Senior Project Manager, based at our Canterbury office. The successful applicant will need a sound knowledge and understanding of Building Regulations and associated legislation along with building construction. Applicants must be highly motivated, enthusiastic, have proven communication and commercial skills and be committed to providing high levels of customer service in order to lead a highly successful team.
In addition, Management experience will be preferable due to the potential for future Management opportunities within the organisation. Candidates must be fully qualified and hold a recognised professional qualification i.e. RICS or CABE or equivalent. We offer an attractive package which will be commensurate with the successful candidate’s qualifications and experience.
Please email your CV to: Ben Cheeseman - Manager ben.cheeseman@harwood.uk.com or call 01227 811882 for an informal discussion For further information visit our website at www.harwood.uk.com No agencies please
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 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 23
DON’T WASTE YOUR SPACE
USE TRISO SUPER 10+ ...AND ACHIEVE A HIGH THERMAL PERFORMANCE WITH ONLY 35mm INSULATION
TRISO-SUPER 10+ is the market leading multifoil insulation. With a thickness of only 35mm TRISO -SUPER 10+ offers insulation solutions to existing roofs and difficult to insulate areas, such as loft conversions.
H CONTROL -SUPER 10+ TRISO
TRISO-SUPER 10+ has been tested under real life conditions in the UK by TRADA Technology for its thermal performance, and has been awarded the BM TRADA Q Mark due to its proven performance. The BM TRADA Building Insulation Product Scheme is UKAS accredited. To find out more visit www.insulation-actis.com or call 01249 462888