Building Control Journal November–December 2016 by RICS

Building Control Journal Up in flames Why fire safety guidance must be changed PG.

Brainy drainage

Highly reflective

Fair competition

Solving water drainage problems from urban growth

Charting the increased uptake of reflective insulation

How International Ethics Standards Coalition works

PG.

November/December 2016

rics.org/journals

C O NTENTS

RI CS Building Control JOUR NAL

Building Control Journal Up in flames Why fire safety guidance must be changed PG.

Brainy drainage

Highly reflective

Fair competition

Solving water drainage problems from urban growth

Charting the increased uptake of reflective insulation

How International Ethics Standards Coalition works

PG.

November/December 2016

rics.org/journals

Front cover: ©Shutterstock

CO N TAC TS

contents 4 Codes and competencies

18 Smelling a rat

5 Getting on my SAP box

19 A sprinkling of value

Martin Conlon looks back at a year of major changes 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) 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: Matthew Griffiths Designer: Nicola Skowronek Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros

Greater industry involvement could considerably improve the Standard Assessment Procedure, Dave Mitchell maintains

6 Change on the way

Peter Martin considers the health problems posed by rats

Hugh Johnson emphasises the financial and safety benefits of installing sprinklers in schools

20 Fair competition and fair gain

Julia Dixon describes the key changes set out in the Housing and Planning Act 2016

Peter Bolton King underlines the importance of ethics and answers questions about the International Ethics Standards Coalition

7 A voice for Europe – and beyond

22 Seeing things clearly

A recent review is changing the way the Consortium of European Building Control works, writes Kevin Dawson

8 Brainy drainage

Continuing his series from Australia, Mark Anderson looks at emergency lighting

23 Update

Ian Crickmore explains how to alleviate the water run-off problems caused by urban population growth

10 Highly reflective

Martin Oxley charts the rise of reflective insulation

12 Keeping up with the times

Celestine Cheong argues for improvements in the fire safety guidance in Approved Document B

14 Opening up

Rising demand for open-plan flats is leaving fire safety guidance out of date, writes Chris Salter

16 Putting up resistance

Eoin O’Loughlin and Danny Hopkin argue that structural fire resistance is about more than simply meeting the prescriptions in the guidance

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

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 3

RICS B uilding Control J OURN AL

C h air m an ’s col u m n

Martin Conlon looks back at a year of major changes

Codes and competencies longer apply, meaning that the UK government will need to develop its own strategy. How that will affect the regulations is anybody’s guess.

Approved inspectors conduct code

This year has been an exceptional one, both in terms of changes and surprises. We need look no further than the result of the UK’s referendum on EU membership – a result that surprised everyone. The political developments that followed could have graced a Jeffrey Archer novel, and seemed just as unbelievable. How exactly all this will affect the building control profession is yet to be fully understood. But if you were to take the energy conservation part of the Building Regulations, for example, then once we have negotiated our exit from the EU then the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive will no

Another development has been the rewriting of the Construction Industry Council’s code of conduct for approved inspectors. The previous code was out of date and not relevant to current working practices, and the new code has seen wide consultation and discussion. The revised code is due to take effect on 1 January, and should enable a much clearer understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable practice.

APC review Beyond this, the world is changing, and how we work and relate to each other in the professional and private worlds are evolving. For the past few years, RICS has been trying to decide the best way forward so it can provide the best representation for

RICS has been reviewing and rationalising the competencies to make them relevant to modern working practices 4 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

built environment professions and professionals. RICS has been reviewing and rationalising the competencies to make them relevant to modern working practices. These competencies will be published next year, with new guides to assist all involved. One thing that really concerns me is the APC. The pass rate in the last round of interviews for those on the building control pathway was really disappointing. The APC process is meant to be a reaffirmation of a candidate’s two-year training programme, so very poor pass rates indicate that something is wrong somewhere. First, we must look at the competencies. These were devised a good few years ago and times have moved on, which means that some are now out of date. Second, it is apparent that a lot of candidates who present themselves for interview are not prepared adequately. Why is that? Some assessors comment on the lack of understanding at Level 3 of the core competencies. This indicates there is a lack of understanding in the workplace about what Level 3 is, and candidates may not be getting the support and guidance that they should. So should we look at the quality

of the workplace supervisors and counsellors? RICS has a number of guidance documents on these roles, which include information on what they should do to give the candidate the best training and support. How many supervisors have actually read these guidance notes, though? How many counsellors understand the RICS requirements? If we as employers do not fully support our trainee surveyors then the profession will fall into obscurity. Too many have fought too hard and long to let that happen. So I would like to see a break-out session at a future RICS Building Control Conference, to encourage employers to ensure that their supervisors and counsellors are fully aware of the requirements and are guiding candidates on APC criteria. Finally, as in all things, we need to renew ourselves constantly, so I am calling for anyone who would like to become an APC supervisor, counsellor or assessor to come forward and contact either the RICS APC department or myself. b Martin Conlon is Chairman of the Building Control Professional Group martin.conlon2@btinternet.com

Energ y perfor mance

RI CS Building Control JO UR NAL

Getting on my SAP box

Greater industry involvement could considerably improve the Standard Assessment Procedure, Dave Mitchell maintains or an industry worth tens of billions of pounds a year, private housebuilding is sometimes provided with pretty inadequate tools. Indeed, in one particular area there is a growing body of evidence from housebuilders, the supply chain and organisations such as the Zero Carbon Hub to suggest that we are far from achieving value for money, while innovation is stifled and housing

design remains poor. So, let’s talk about SAP ... that is, the Standard Assessment Procedure. This is the methodology used to assess and compare dwellings’ energy and environmental performance, which is meant to provide accurate and reliable assessments to ensure approval under Part L of the Building Regulations.

Potential savings To give you an idea of the savings that would be possible if SAP were knocked into shape, consider these very rough figures. If, in 2016, the private sector completes about 140,000 new homes and they are each 80 sq. m on average, that amounts to about 11.2 million sq. m of dwellings in total. Let’s say building cost is £750/sq. m as it makes the maths easy, and that results in building costs of £8.4bn. How much of that is affected by Part L and SAP? It will be all the fabric, including windows, most of the plumbing, heating and ventilation, and so on. So, with a finger in the air, shall we say around 25%? This means that around £2.1bn of work depends on SAP. At the last count, the government spent less than £500,000 a year on SAP – and, to be honest, it shows. For this we get 100 or more pages of equations and diagrams. Anyone who wants to do so can then attempt to code this into software that is checked by BRE, which has spent its time doing the same. After all the comparisons and contrasts, the various parties agree that the differences in their answers are small enough Image © Shutterstock

not to matter. As we know, this process still takes some time, especially when Part L changes. Quite often we are left in the lurch trying to make sense of a new Part L with a ‘consultation version’ of SAP rather than the real thing. So you would think that when we, along with the materials manufacturers, have previously suggested to the government that we could help fund development and maintenance of SAP in return for more industry involvement and sight of the governance, we would have been met with an eager response. But the EU has insisted that member states rather than users must own and be in control of their respective national calculation methodologies. While it may not be so in other areas, Brexit could be our friend here, and perhaps it is time to go back to the government and have the conversation again. We know from the experience of Robust Details that the industry can take a policy and develop a more user-friendly way of meeting the requirements. Robust Details also demonstrates that it can be both more cost-effective and enable higher performance – a win–win. After all, if we collectively spent, say, £2m a year on SAP to make it more accurate and realistic, we would only have to save £1 in every £1,000 of our Part L-related building costs to recoup the cost. From what every technical designer says to me, the inadequacies of SAP cost us a lot more than that. So how far do we push it? Do we spend a little to save a lot, or just continue wasting good money on poor measures? b

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

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 5

RICS B uilding Control J OURN AL

Lega l

Change on the way

Julia Dixon describes the key changes set out in the Housing and Planning Act 2016

he Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the act) received Royal Assent on 12 May after seven months of parliamentary debate. It introduces some key changes to the planning system, essentially designed to increase the supply of new homes and meet the government’s stated aim of having 1m new homes built by 2020. It also introduces changes to the process of compulsory purchase and compensation. While much of the detail remains to be set out in secondary legislation, the government has been undertaking technical consultations that give an indication of the way some provisions may work in practice. The key planning changes concern: bb starter homes bb self-build and custom build bb planning permission in principle and brownfield registers bb wider definition of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to allow schemes that include housing bb alternative providers for processing applications.

Starter homes Starter homes are covered in Part 1, chapter 1, sections 1–8 (England only), and are defined as new-build housing for first-time buyers at least 23 years of age but younger than 40. The housing is to be sold at a discount of at least 20% of the market value and at less than the price cap, which is £450,000 in Greater London and £250,000 elsewhere. Councils will be under a duty to promote the supply of starter homes, for example in local plans and when determining planning applications. The National Planning Policy Framework definition of “affordable housing” is also to be amended to refer to starter homes. On 23 March, the government published its Starter Homes Regulations – Technical Consultation, stating that 20% of all homes constructed should be of this type, and this requirement would be triggered for schemes of 10 units or more or on sites of 0.5ha and above. Those in the development sector consider it likely that the requirement will prioritise provision of starter homes over other, more traditional forms of affordable housing.

Self-build and custom build While councils are already required to keep and have regard to a register of people seeking land to build or commission their own home, Part 1, chapter 2, sections 9–12 of the act explain what is meant by self-build and custom housebuilding and introduce a duty on councils to grant sufficient planning permissions for serviced plots to meet demand. Regulations may specify the circumstances in which an exemption may be sought.

Planning permission in principle and brownfield registers A new, alternative method of obtaining planning permission for certain housing-led developments is set out in Part 6, sections 150 and 151 (England only). 6 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

Planning permission in principle will establish the basis for development on a specific site. It will be obtained in two ways: bb allocation in the new brownfield land registers, development plan documents or neighbourhood plans bb direct application to the local authority (for minor developments only). The permission in principle will not in itself constitute a planning permission, but will establish the location, uses and amount of development that has been allowed. A subsequent Technical Details Consent will need to be granted in accordance with the permission in principle; together, these will constitute a full grant of planning permission. Local authorities will also be required to maintain a new register of brownfield sites suitable for housing, though regulations are awaited setting out registration criteria. The government has indicated that brownfield sites suitable for five or more dwellings or larger than 0.25ha should be registered.

NSIPs Part 6, section 160 of the act (England only) enables housing associated with an NSIP to be approved as part of a Development Consent Order for that project, if it constitutes “related” development, rather than requiring a separate planning application to the local authority. Restrictions and limitations will be imposed on this.

Alternative providers Part 6, sections 161–164 (England only) of the act introduce provisions to allow planning applications to be processed by “alternative providers”, that is, parties other than the council. Regulations will be put in place allowing certain applications to be processed by “designated persons” and specifying whether other local authorities can act as alternative providers, as well as detailing procedures, fees, performance standards and complaints procedures. The alternative providers will only process applications and not be responsible for determining them – that onus will remain on the relevant local authorities. The act introduces many more changes in terms of housing and compulsory purchase, but this article has considered the key changes from a planning perspective. The Queen’s Speech in May also promised a Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so further changes will be coming our way. C Julia Dixon is a senior associate at Squire Patton Boggs, UK julia.dixon@squirepb.com

www.rics.org/housingplanning

Related competencies include Inspection, Legal/regulatory compliance

RI CS Building Control JO UR NAL

C EBC

Kevin Dawson looks at the work of the Consortium of European Building Control

A voice for Europe – and beyond

he Consortium of Building Control (CEBC) was established by RICS in 1995 with the eventual aim of creating a body to represent the profession across the continent. Today, it provides a forum for those responsible for the content of building regulations in European states who carry out technical assessments or compliance inspections. The CEBC’s 35 member bodies include national building control organisations and professional bodies, in and outside Europe, that are active in the development of health, safety, accessibility, energy conservation and sustainability legislation for the built environment. Members are invited to attend biannual general assembly meetings in Europe, respond to enquiries, questionnaires and surveys that inform external organisations on building regulation issues, participate in workshops, contribute to project groups and promote CEBC expertise.

Review A review of the CEBC that concluded in October 2015 approved the following:

bb the adoption of a clear, concise vision and mission statement bb revised statutes and new bye-laws bb a business plan for 2016–19 bb the role of secretary general to be a paid rather than voluntary position bb fewer policy committee members responsible for realising the vision bb the creation of working groups to complete defined projects such as the production of Building Control Reports. The mission statement has been simplified along the following lines. Background CEBC is composed of member organisations from the public and private sectors, which are involved in building control or in the development of appropriate legislation. Ambition Our aim is to contribute to improving the safety and sustainability of the built environment and to promote modern building control systems, which are efficient and business-friendly at the same time. Approach To collect information on building control

Figure 1 CEBC strategic priorities Information

Dissemination

Monitoring

Expertise Collect relevant information on building control activities

Disseminate (findings/ suggestions/ recommendations)

Describe

Internal (members)

Techniques

External (national and EU)

Construction products

Analyse systems Evaluate efficiency etc. Compare

Developments and trends

Regulations

systems continuously and analyse, evaluate and compare them with a view to systemise best practice models and to monitor new trends in building practices and construction products and collect relevant experiences. Findings are disseminated in CEBC Building Control Reports. A number of strategic priorities have been identified and approved, with the aim of providing expertise on building control systems across Europe, on future developments and trends and to increase recognition of the CEBC (see Figure 1). CEBC is achieving greater recognition through regular talks with the European Commission, representation on European committees on consumer protection and building standards application, and contributions to implementing building information modelling across Europe. CEBC has also now set up three project groups that will report on building control systems in Europe, the value of the profession, and communications and electronic provision of services across the continent. The reports will be made available at www.cebc.eu.

The future Given the UK’s recent vote to leave the EU, questions have been asked about the future role of CEBC. It is important to note that CEBC is not a political organisation; one of its main objectives is to contribute to improving the safety and sustainability of the built environment not just in Europe but on an international front. As such, CEBC will continue to play an important advisory role to governments, professional bodies and building control licensing organisations throughout the world. It can also be argued that, with the UK looking to set up new trading agreements with the rest of the world, CEBC has a fresh opportunity to move forward. It is about to enter a global partnership managed by the World Bank to promote international best practice in building policies, systems, regulations and procedures, demonstrating the continuing international role of the consortium. C

Kevin Dawson is Head of Resilience at Peterborough City Council kevin.dawson@peterborough.gov.uk

NO V E MBE R / DE C E MBE R 2 0 1 6 7

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

Water drainage

Ian Crickmore explains how to alleviate water run-off problems associated with urban population growth

Brainy drainage

ver the past 16 years, the urban population of the UK has experienced an increase in excess of 5m people, and similar to this pattern (http://bit.ly/1jMVPFV), other cities around the globe have been growing, with approved construction in New York city up 180% from 2014 to 2015 to allow for a larger population (http://bit.ly/1T9U04f). With this influx of people comes an unavoidable rise in the number of tall buildings in close proximity, limiting space available for the natural drainage of water.

Engineered measures Most rainfall events in the UK comprise less than 5mm of precipitation, and can be controlled adequately by traditional systems. However, with the increasing frequency of extreme rainfall due to climate change and increased urban migration meaning less space for natural drainage, buildings now require engineered features, both to attenuate and discharge or re-use rainwater and to protect citizens from flooding. In open countryside, 95% of rainfall makes its way into the ground and drains naturally, with only 5% contributing to flooding. This is in stark contrast to urban areas, where these figures are reversed: 95% of rainwater in cities has nowhere to drain and will potentially cause flooding. In response to these issues, the government has in recent years introduced legislation that is designed to identify new ways to manage surface water via drainage systems. The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report, published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2012, identified flooding as the most significant risk across UK cities, 8 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

both currently and in the short-term future, with water availability assessed to be an increasingly significant pressure (http://bit.ly/1mPgGbo). This has in turn led bodies such as the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) to find evidence supporting the importance of surface water run-off attenuation. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have long been on the agenda, with CIRIA’s own SuDS manual first published in 2007 (http://bit.ly/1niCT42). The principle has evolved and gained in popularity over the past decade, with governmental bodies and manufacturers alike developing a greater understanding of how such systems can be incorporated into building construction to maximise their benefits. November 2015 saw the revision of CIRIA’s manual to incorporate the “four pillars of SuDS” – water quantity, water quality, amenity and biodiversity.

Blue and green roofs The manual emphasised that SuDS should be fully integrated into the design of urban buildings as an early consideration. One way of doing so in city centres, where space is limited, is the use of podium- or roof-level rainwater attenuation and green and blue roofs. Blue roofs are specifically designed to store and control the flow of rainwater, intercepting it at source and reducing peak flow by using flow control outlets. Blue roofs can be open water surfaces, which offer storage in a porous media or beneath a surface in a proprietary modular geocelluar system. Temporarily storing excessive amounts of rainwater using specially designed retention materials, blue roofs prevent such water from reaching already overwhelmed sewers until the system has the capacity to handle it. The water can be managed through a flow control

outlet at a rate agreed by the property developer and water companies. Green roofs are, in contrast, covered with vegetation and a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane, and incorporate building drainage and irrigation systems. By slowing the rate of rainfall to the drainage system and storing and attenuating water, green roofs can provide many benefits for city centres. As well as preventing urban areas from experiencing flooding as a result of excessive rainfall, green roofs encourage biodiversity; they enable the planting of seeds and local vegetation, all sustained by rainwater stored in the green roof. This in turn provides a habitat for wildlife, mainly birds and insects, increasing biodiversity in our city centres. Human Settlements, Infrastructure, and Spatial Planning, a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2014 (http://bit.ly/2bldZig), observed that an increase in green spaces, including green roofs in city centres, not only regulates storm water and prevents floods but additionally offers benefits such as reducing air pollution, establishing recreational space, providing shade and cooling, and enhancing wellbeing. There is also evidence that the re-use of water stored by green and blue roofs can also locally reduce the urban heat island effect by removing heat from the air through evapotranspiration.

Polypipe’s Permavoid system installed at podium level at Unite Students Stratford

Without the expensive excavation of ground or surrender of underground car parking space, there is no room to store rainwater at ground level in urban areas In areas where the space available is not limited, rainwater can be stored at ground level; however in city centres, space is at a premium, so this is often not an option. Without the expensive excavation of ground or surrender of underground car parking space, there is no room to store rainwater at ground level in urban areas. Green and blue roofs offer a simple alternative, as well as providing numerous additional benefits, such as additional recreational space, encouraging biodiversity and regulating storm water management, and are now being incorporated into local authorities’ strategic flood risk assessment plans.

Stored rainwater The capture and attenuation of water at roof or podium level allows this water to be harvested and re-used in the building itself. Car washing, toilet flushing and laundry facilities can use rainwater stored by blue or green roofs, reducing a building’s use of potable water. When Image © Polypipe

required, stored water is treated, and can be re-used to irrigate green roofs in dry spells, and for amenity and biodiversity. One such project where this approach has been taken is Unite Students Stratford ONE. Located near the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London and adjacent to Westfield Stratford City shopping centre, the project provides accommodation for more than 1,000 students across 28 floors. A practical rainwater attenuation system was developed to manage the site’s storm water drainage requirements in the event of a “one-in-100-year” storm event with an additional 40% capacity as a safety margin. As is typical with city centre buildings, the site has restricted external ground area to incorporate a large, buried attenuation structure. A two-tiered Permavoid geocellular attenuation system at podium level collects rainwater run-off from both the building roof and podium. The discharge is conveyed via flow control outlets into a 30m3 buried attenuation tank,

constructed with Polypipe Polystorm geocellular units, at a rate of 42 litres/sec. Consisting of lightweight, 85mm-deep modular cells that can be interlocked to create a load-supporting raft, the Permavoid Podium Deck intercepts water and integrates source control into the overall SuDS scheme. Incorporating the podium deck into the scheme allowed the design process to begin at roof level. Such water-efficient equipment and control of surface run-off can earn several BREEAM points for the sustainability of a building design. Climate change and flash floods are an increasing risk to city centres across the world. With a clear lack of space for natural drainage, it is of paramount importance that building control surveyors look at different ways to preserve and protect urban areas, citizens and their homes from storm water damage. C

Ian Crickmore is Technical Director at Polypipe Terrain commercial.technical@polypipe.com

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 9

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

E nerg y

Highly reflective

Martin Oxley charts the rise of reflective insulation

After running 26.2 miles and receiving your well-earned finisher’s medal, you are usually also given a goody bag on completing your marathon. Along with the T-shirt, snack and muscle-relieving pain gel, you will find a shiny, highly reflective space blanket. This helps to keep you warm after you have stopped running – so why not use the same technology to keep your house warm as well?

Testing performance When the first reflective insulation products hit the shelves of builder’s merchants many years ago there was limited certified testing, so some of their original performance claims might have been a little optimistic. Testing houses in both the UK and Europe also achieved varying results after analysing the products in the same way as they normally would traditional insulants. So, while test houses and manufacturers agreed on a standard testing methodology for thermal performance – a process that took several years – some companies opted for in-situ evaluation.

It soon became apparent that it was extremely difficult to build ‘standard houses’ repeatedly and ensure that thermal performance and weathering conditions remained absolutely identical, so as to evaluate the true performance of these new reflective insulants with complete accuracy. This caused market confusion and led to many architects, specifiers and contractors not selecting reflective insulation for their projects.

Thermal standard After several rounds of evaluation with some of the best insulation-testing houses, Europe agreed on a thermal performance standard in 2012, BS EN 16012: 2012 +A1: 2015 Thermal insulation for buildings – Reflective insulation products – Determination of the declared thermal performance (http://bit.ly/2bramb2). There was now a defined methodology for direct thermal comparison of reflective insulants. This, together with the emergence of the first reflective insulation certificates from the British Board of Agrément (BBA) more than 16 years ago, increased the credibility of the industry and provided consumers with the reassurance they required, and sales started to increase significantly during this period.

Radiation of heat All insulation products work by reducing heat flow, which

10 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

occurs in one or more of three ways – conduction, convection or radiation – with heat always moving from the hot to the cold side. Reflective insulation’s key feature is, of course, to limit heat flow by radiation. The radiated energy is invisible and causes no rise in temperature until it hits a surface, where it is absorbed and causes the object to get warmer. For instance, radiative energy from the sun will pass through double-glazing, but once it hits an object inside the conservatory it starts to heat it up. When comparing the performance of reflective insulations, a key technical characteristic to consider is the emittance of the product, more usually described as emissivity – specifically, a surface measurement of the product’s ability to emit radiant energy. Image © Shutterstock

Emissivity is a ratio, and is given a value between zero and one. Zero indicates that all the energy is reflected and none is absorbed, as for example with a highly polished silver surface. Conversely, a value of one denotes that none of the energy is reflected and is entirely absorbed, as by a totally black body such as a black hole in space. For a typical reflective insulation product, the aluminium foil outer surface would have a declared ‘aged’ emissivity of around 0.05, meaning that the significant majority of energy is not absorbed; it is ‘aged’ because it should represent how the product will perform after many years, rather than just initially. Conversely, for a typical brown housebrick, you would usually expect an emissivity value of around 0.90 – that is, most of the energy is absorbed.

RI CS BU ILDING Control JOUR NAL

Pitched roof application

ask why it has not been used in more applications. The lack of a current European Product Standard may be one of the reasons why architects, specifiers and contractors continue to use their normal insulant, given that this will have worked in the past and they do not have time to investigate all the possibilities. But this is where a BBA certificate can enable the manufacturer to address many of the questions that the industry has in relation to product performance. The use of reflective insulation in conjunction with other traditional insulants can help achieve increasingly stringent U-value targets. To ensure maximum performance, products must be used together with an air cavity in front of, and in some cases behind, the insulation. Some products are also classed as a vapour-control layer because they offer a high degree of moisture resistance and, of course, must be used on the warm side of any proposed system to reduce the risk of any interstitial condensation. Others are classed as breathable because they are perforated through all layers to allow any moisture build-up to pass through the material and dissipate on the other side, typically in the form of a ventilated cavity in a warm pitched roof. So although it may have not have been a smooth or easy ride to get here, reflective insulation is now definitely making significant inroads into the European insulant market. b

When comparing performance of reflective insulations, a key technical characteristic is the emissivity of the product and credible results. The results supplied should be ‘aged’, to take into account the material’s ability to resist oxidation or corrosion. A harmonised European Product Standard is currently being developed for reflective insulation, which is due to be published shortly. Once officially issued, manufacturers will then be able to CE-mark their product to encourage increased sales across the continent.

BBA anniversary

Because emissivity is a ratio of the energy received and reflected, then the temperature and direction of measurement is an important function. Emissivity therefore needs to be measured accurately; the texture of the sample can also have an effect on the true result by scattering the light. BS EN 16012: 2012 + A1: 2015 refers to BS EN 15976: 2011 Flexible sheets for waterproofing – Determination of emissivity, which provides details of testing and reporting methodology (http://bit.ly/2bCJq5p). With most reflective insulations, you are determining very low emissivity values and are working at the limits of the instrumentation, so using an experienced independent testing laboratory such as the BBA is essential in order to obtain accurate, precise

The BBA celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2016, which means we have been evaluating numerous insulation types – from novel to traditional, in many different applications – for half a century. Each certificate has a scope of use that lists what the product is, its technical performance, how it complies with Building Regulations and where it can be used. Insulation manufacturers work hard to produce the best product for each specific application, to ensure that all the necessary requirements are met. Obviously, for any insulation the key element is thermal performance, so correct installation is absolutely essential. If it is installed poorly or incorrectly, there will be a loss of thermal performance; and, with the majority of insulation ending up covered once it is installed, this will continue throughout its life, and may cause further issues later. Correct installation of insulation was one of the many parameters picked up in the Zero Carbon Hub Performance Gap report Image © TLX Insulation

as an area to improve (see Building Control Journal February/March, pp.14–15). Architects, designers and specifiers are required to take CPD so as to keep abreast of developments. However, an installer may often only attend a one-day training course and become approved with typically very little follow-up or auditing, even though they may then be regarded as the company’s expert. So the focus for manufacturers wanting to increase market share must be to prepare comprehensive technical literature complementing the sales material, as well as detailed installation guidance to demonstrate the ease of fitting and all the key features and benefits. This guidance could range from easy-to-follow images of the installation process right through to on-site training schemes. Companies are keen to ensure that their product is installed correctly, does what it should do and stands the test of time. The BBA’s auditing and inspection team has a wealth of knowledge and experience of the range of on-site insulation, from the best to the worst, so it can offer a valuable resource for those looking to ensure that the product is installed correctly.

Market share Given that reflective insulation works according to the standard principles of physics and was used as early as the space race of the 1950s and 1960s, being both thin and lightweight, then you could

Martin Oxley is a project manager at BBA moxley@bba.star.co.uk

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 11

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

Fire

Celestine Cheong argues for improvements in the fire safety guidance in Approved Document B

Keeping up with the times

hy does fire safety matter when the built environment sector faces other pressing questions, such as how to access a skilled workforce that will meet the nation’s construction and infrastructure needs? Aren’t buildings already safe? Despite the number of fire deaths having fallen 30% over the last decade (http://bit.ly/29tkVZ5), the financial losses from fire are increasing at a worrying level year on year (http://bit.ly/29hk3mL). However, it is not just financial loss that need occupy us. Fire concerns life safety, business resilience and continuity, our health, our children’s education and the environment, affecting both commercial and residential properties – the very places we live and work. Yet if fire deaths are at an all-time low, then surely the Building Regulations and the guidance in Approved Document B are working? In short, they were and – to an extent – still are. The issue is that it is 2016. We are moving at great speed but the regulations and associated guidance have not kept up, and this put us in a dangerous situation.

What’s wrong? The last revision of the guidance in Approved Document B was in 2006. Just think about how different our mobile phones were 10 years ago – construction methods and materials in the built environment were different then, too. We have transformed a great deal over the last decade. Our obsession with DIY has seen more conversions and extensions, while more people live in cities where residency churns several times a year, and the introduction of new insulation materials and techniques poses a range of fire safety threats not thought of even five years ago, let alone 10. Major cuts in public-sector funding are already affecting the regulatory frameworks, the risks the fire and rescue 12 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

services face and their response times. This is placing a greater burden on these services and their partner organisations to develop innovative and successful strategies for our changing world. Matters will intensify. To put things into perspective, the measures in Approved Document B’s guidance assume a certain level of fire safety management. The rise in the use of booking systems such as Airbnb, which offer more rooms than the world’s largest hotel chains without actually owning a

single property, is an area of concern. Many such premises, including registered smaller hotels, are unstaffed at night. This is an increasingly common trend, but building fire safety requirements are not adapting to take account of it. In 2014, the Fire Sector Federation (FSF)’s Built Environment Issues and Affairs (BEIA) workstream was established, for two main reasons. The first was that the inquest into the 2009 Lakanal House fire in London recommended a review of Approved Image © Shutterstock

RI CS Building Control JO UR NAL

Document B to provide clearer counsel, with a special focus on the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building. This called for the language in the guidance to be made more comprehensible to the wide range of people engaged in construction, maintenance and refurbishment of buildings; during the inquest, even the experts disagreed on the interpretation of guidance in the document. The coroner’s section 43 letter to the then Communities Secretary Eric Pickles recommended a review of Approved Document B to improve useability. This review has not yet been undertaken, however, which means that fire can still spread externally and penetrate walls with no resistance, at great risk to a building’s occupants. The second factor in the formation of BEIA was the publication of three independent studies by Bureau Veritas, BRE and the Centre for Economics and Business Research respectively, all of which highlighted that there were policy flaws in the guidance.

BEIA studies The workstream has since conducted its own studies, gathering expert opinion from the FSF’s membership in conjunction with the Construction Industry Council (CIC) on the Building Regulations and Approved Document B. The goals of the two surveys were to garner an impression of understanding about and the clarity and ease of use of the current guidance; and to establish whether the system should look beyond the capacity of “life safety”, gain an impression of the importance of the fire and rescue services in decision-making and determine, by today’s standards, which areas require further investigation and discussion. The studies found that 92% of FSF members who responded believe changes are needed to Approved Document B, and 91% said there should be new or additional guidance provided with easy-to-read text. When assessed for user-friendliness, the guidance presented various degrees of difficulty, according to 79% of FSF members and 66% of CIC members. Three-quarters of FSF members also agreed that the fire and rescue services should have the final decision with regard to B5 compliance – access and facilities for the fire service – while all responding FSF members agreed on the need to address inconsistent building definitions.

Approved Document B more prescriptive and rule-based in the future bb an appropriate online format. Respondents were asked in particular what percentage of the regulations should be guidance and what percentage regulatory, indicating a possible compliance check is in prospect.

Parliamentary response

Other responses include 88% of FSF members saying that Approved Document B need not adapt to suit the trends in modern methods of construction (MMC). Forty-two per cent of CIC members agreed that the document is flexible, but worryingly, some 21.4% of CIC members felt that they did not know whether Approved Document B is flexible enough to respond to MMC trends, indicating a need for better education in this regard (http://bit.ly/29vWtbg). Two of the BEIA workstream’s aims are to promote dialogue about buildings policy and fire between policymakers and stakeholders, and to help develop recommended and revised policy material. In response to the survey results’ consensus that the guidance is extremely difficult to understand, the workstream has formed a voluntary task group in which the building control profession and civil service are represented, and which meets on a regular basis to enable more consistent interpretation of the document. As for accessibility, navigational aspects and improvements to policy, it is working with a think tank on potential approaches. In February 2016, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched an online consultation via the National Building Specification, part of RIBA Enterprises, on improving the useability of Approved Documents B and M. The survey closed in April, and while the results have been tallied and a report prepared, this has yet to be published. The study sought views on issues such as: bb the use of tables and diagrams bb suggested design approaches bb the consistency of terms used bb whether it achieves the right balance between being prescriptive and non-prescriptive; the wording suggests that the DCLG could be minded to make Image © Crown

In a written response to a letter from Sir David Amess, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group, the Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government James Wharton said he was not yet in a position to set out plans for Building Regulations. Wharton has acknowledged that it is policy not to increase the burden of regulation but instead to aim for its simplification: if one measure is to be introduced, then it would need to be offset by the removal of two others, depending on validity. In a parliamentary question asked in June, Lyn Brown asked about Wharton’s plans “to review the guidance provided in Approved Document B to the Building Regulations 2010”, to which he replied: “My department is considering a number of issues related to the Building Regulations and building control system matters. We will make an announcement in due course.” A review of the guidance in Approved Document B was then on the cards; but with the UK getting ready to consider new deals as it prepares to leave the EU, there is concern that the government may claim such a review is now an unnecessary complication. However, it should definitely not stall or be postponed. In this volatile landscape of ambition and uncertainty, wouldn’t fewer headaches and a simpler, clearer overall picture be desirable? C

Celestine Cheong is Chair of the Fire Sector Federation’s Built Environment Issues and Affairs Workstream www.firesectorfederation.co.uk

Related competencies include Fire safety

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 1 3

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

Fire

Opening up

Rising demand for open-plan flats is leaving fire safety guidance out of date, writes Chris Salter

n UK cities, blocks of flats are still the easiest method of meeting demand for housing. By having them reach into the sky rather than spread out, developers are able to get the most out of the available space. The 1950s and 1960s saw concrete housing blocks constructed all over the country, and we now seem to be seeing this trend repeated – albeit with better layouts and aesthetics, building on the significant advances in design and technology in the time since then. The first Building Regulations also came into effect in the 1960s, and they have evolved over the years from prescriptive rules to take a more functional approach. However, even with the regulations’ current degree of flexibility, some developers claim that they are being prevented from making full use of the space available to them.

Fire safety Blocks of flats, like all other residential buildings, need to comply with the current functional requirements of the Building Regulations. The easiest method of meeting these is to follow the guidance in Approved Document B: Volume 2 Buildings other than Dwellinghouses (http://bit.ly/2b0LLIZ) and BS 9991: Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings – Code of practice (http://bit.ly/2bFy9TQ). Both of these documents are fairly prescriptive, and some architects and developers feel that they constrain what can be done with a flat. In general, the front doors of flats in the UK open on to a protected entrance hall, consisting of 30-minute fire-resistant construction, which are no lengthier than 9m. All rooms are accessed from this hall, and all doors in the hall are required to be of the FD20 fire-resisting kind. Growing demand from investors, developers and customers has seen the introduction of the open-plan flat, however, in which bedrooms and other rooms are accessed from a main living area. Americans have long enjoyed such open-plan flats

For some high-end residential units bigger is better, and they work beyond guidance limits 14 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

Open flat layouts are becoming more sought-after in the UK

– one just has to watch a range of US TV shows to see that this layout is extremely common – and they are becoming more sought-after in the UK. We have limited guidance on these open-plan flats. Work carried out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) on behalf of NHBC in 2009, Open plan flat layouts: Assessing life safety in the event of fire, studied such properties and went on to influence BS 9991, which contains a section on them. The guidance in BS 9991 only allows for open-plan flats of up to 12m x 16m, and requires residential sprinklers to be installed. For some developers, this may be sufficient size; but for some high-end residential units, bigger is better, and they need to work beyond the limits of the guidance. There also appears to be a growing demand for split-level flats as well as open-plan dwellinghouses in which the stairs are not enclosed.

Exceeding the guidance What happens when the proposed open-plan flat is outside the scope of the guidance? Building control bodies (BCBs) and approved inspectors still need to prove that open-plan flats which do not meet the relevant guidance still fulfil the functional requirements of the Building Regulations, namely those in Part B. What proof do they need that these flats are safe? It seems that the common approach at the minute is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD), by which fire engineers can create models that mimic conditions in the proposed flat, allowing BCBs to understand how safe the property is likely to be. These models can either go down a deterministic route, demonstrating what is likely to happen for a given set of criteria, or they can take a comparative approach to show how the proposed flat measures against a code-compliant one, once

RI CS BU ILDING Control JOUR NAL

There can be a misconception that what happens in the model is exactly what will happen if a fire starts in the proposed flat Further work

more testing to a set of agreed criteria. These two options are valid ways of demonstrating compliance, as set out in BS 7974, but a combination of both can be used to help demonstrate to a BCB that the proposed design is safe. The acceptance criteria should be agreed in advance between all parties. It should be noted that CFD models suffer from the “garbage in, garbage out” paradigm, where incorrect input parameters will produce incorrect results; the models should also only be used as an indication of what is likely to happen in the flat in real life, as there is a misconception among some consultants and professionals that what happens in the model is exactly what will happen if a fire breaks out in the proposed flat. Based on BRE’s extensive experience with large-scale experimental fires as well as investigations of actual blazes, we have found it extremely unlikely that any model can predict the exact location of a fire initiation event in a building; it can only be a representation of an agreed scenario. The aim of the analysis is to derive the available safe evacuation time and compare this with the required safe evacuation time, a standard method of demonstrating compliance with the Building Regulations. By comparing the two, the BCB can see whether occupants are likely to escape before conditions in the flat would prevent this. BRE offers a unique approach that is based on probabilistic modelling, which is quicker than the CFD method. It models thousands of different combinations of fire locations, fire sizes, internal flat layouts, occupant escape times and other factors in the time that it takes for a single CFD model to be run. This allows BCBs to understand with greater certainty what is likely to happen in a flat. Probabilistic analysis of this kind served as the basis for the NHBC research that in turn formed the foundation of BS 9991. Image © BRE

BCBs are being approached with an increasing number of open-plan apartments by fire engineering consultants and architects. It is likely that this trend will continue as foreign investors keep on funding developments in the UK and try to get the most from their money. So what still needs to be done? There is plenty of demand for duplex and large open-plan flats that fall outside the scope of the current guidance. It is recognised that the guidance cannot cover every layout eventuality; however, multi-level apartments are an area worthy of further research to assess whether they can be developed without the need for costly and time-consuming CFD modelling in each case. Should open-plan stairs in dwellinghouses be a feature that developers wish to pursue, further research is also needed to assess whether the installation of a residential sprinkler system can provide an equivalent level of safety to that of conventional homes with a protected staircase. Experience tells us that CFD modelling will almost always show that, in the event of a fire, visibility in a flat fails any of the consultant’s specifications – the amount of smoke generated by even a small fire that is enough to activate the sprinkler may also be sufficient to fail the visibility tenability criteria. Further work is needed on how this actually affects the occupants’ escape time and the CFD modelling tool should, if possible, incorporate the direct interaction of the sprinklers with the smoke layer to take the effects of the former into account. Last of all, the addition of sprinklers to these open-plan designs is essential to offset the absence of a protected entrance hall and to keep the fire to a low intensity, allowing occupants the opportunity to escape safely. Statistical information on the reliability of residential sprinklers in the UK is currently lacking. Nevertheless, it can be expected that this situation will improve over the coming years – at least in Wales, where all new and converted single-family dwellings, including houses and flats, are now required to have a residential sprinkler system installed. C

Dr Chris Salter is a fire safety scientist at BRE chris.salter@bre.co.uk

Related competencies include Fire safety

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 1 5

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

Fire

Putting up resistance Eoin O’Loughlin and Danny Hopkin argue that structural fire resistance is about more than simply meeting the guidance prescriptions

Ensuring structural resilience in the event of fire is key to the safety of people in or near a building. In England and Wales, the minimum legal obligation is requirement B3 of the Building Regulations, which says that in the event of fire, “stability will be maintained for a reasonable period”. Prescriptive guidance and codes, such as the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Approved Document B (http://bit.ly/2b0LLIZ) and the BSI’s BS 9999 Code of practice for fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings (http://bit.ly/2aLKdC6) provide a simple means of defining the structural fire resistance requirements for straightforward buildings.

Structural failure The codes recommend a fire resistance period commensurate with the likelihood and consequences of structural failure due to such a fire, with a view to minimising risk across all buildings. Isolated elements

of the structure are then typically designed and/or protected so they would pass a standardised furnace test of corresponding duration. Although these steps have been features of design for decades, their origins and their applicability to a particular building are rarely interrogated. Given that guidance has not evolved greatly since Post-War Building Studies no. 20, Fire Grading of Buildings in 1946 (http://bit.ly/2c3fhu9), and the furnace testing regimes are even older, the appropriateness of prescriptive fire resistance measures for modern buildings is increasingly difficult to ascertain. In the face of a rapidly evolving built environment, there is a need to scrutinise the means by which the minimum legal obligation is achieved. Fire resistance is a measure of the performance of an isolated construction element under defined furnace heating conditions – commonly referred to as a ‘standard fire’ – relative to the specific performance criteria of integrity, insulation and load-bearing, according to the nature of the element. The load-bearing fire resistance of a structural element is the test duration after which it reaches a notional deflection limit of span divided by 20 – for instance, a sag of 300mm at the midpoint of a 6m-span beam – although this was

16 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

Early structural fire test from 1898

principally introduced to prevent damage to testing rigs rather than set an acceptable performance threshold.

Standardised testing The need for standardised fire testing arose in the USA in the early 20th century when ‘fire-safe’ buildings came to be expected after several significant conflagrations – most notably the great fires of Baltimore and San Francisco, in which numerous buildings were entirely destroyed. The fire-resistive principle developed momentum as materials that were proclaimed to be fireproof – largely inert materials such as steel, iron or concrete – subsequently took over the construction market without any significant evidence as to their actual performance in the event of fire. In an effort to assess the comparative performance of such materials and products independently in the most severe possible fires foreseen at the time, the first concepts of the standard fire test emerged (see image, above). The heating regime adopted in early tests stemmed from New York fire codes, which were informed by firefighters’ qualitative experience. With a peak temperature of 927°C, the testing regime was, at the time, intended to be more severe than any envisaged real fire. Following some criticism and debate, a consensus was reached on a new fire test standard in 1916, Image © University of Edinburgh

which is largely still the basis of test regimes used today (see Figure 1). The concept of expressing fire resistance performance objectives in terms of time did not emerge until the late 1920s. In recognition that the heating regime of the ‘standard fire’ did not correlate with those noted in real fire scenarios, an attempt was made to relate the severity of real fires to standard durations of exposure to fire. In the process, correlations between fire load and required fire resistance were devised, resulting in the early manifestations of the fire resistance periods applied in design today. For the remainder of the 20th century, various practitioners and researchers highlighted that fire resistance had little if any correlation with how an element, not to mention the overall structure, might perform in any particular fire. This is because: bb the heating regime is not representative of exposure to a real fire bb the structural boundary conditions are not representative of entire structural frames, in which members interact, both positively and negatively bb the performance criteria are generalised and not typical of failure. The primary purpose of fire resistance testing, therefore, remains consistent with its original conception

RI CS BU ILDING Control JOUR NAL

Figure 1 The standard fire curve 1,200

Temperature (°C)

1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0

120

150

Time (minutes) as providing a means of comparing the performance of construction elements.

Modern buildings Successful fire resistance fulfils the statutory obligations, meets stakeholder goals and is completed within the project’s constraints. These factors can be considered in the context of the overall project or in terms of fire resistance design. Project-wide goals may include the architectural vision, building functionality or future flexibility. From a fire resistance perspective, the goal may be to achieve the minimum performance required by the Building Regulations. However, there is often an aspiration for a higher degree of resilience, enabling, for instance, operational continuity. Overall constraints may be budgetary, concerning the programme or existing building or site conditions. In fire resistance design terms, the constraints primarily relate to how fire may manifest. Depending on a building’s design and use, real fire events will vary in nature, as will potential consequences for the structure. For example, in small enclosures such as a cellular

office, flashover may occur – that is, the near-simultaneous ignition of all available fuel. In larger enclosures such as an open-plan office, a fire may need to travel in search of fuel and oxygen. In very large enclosures such as stadia, though, a fire may be localised and not spread beyond the area of ignition. Common to all real building fires is that, given the finite fuel available, they will not burn indefinitely. Fire resistance design effectively comprises the measures adopted in ensuring that a building’s structure remains stable for a reasonable period. For simple buildings, where life safety is the chief consideration, adopting a prescriptive recommendation may be most appropriate. However, the validity of this approach relies on three key prerequisites: bb the fires anticipated are adequately characterised by the behaviour expected in small enclosures, i.e. where flashover is a likely outcome bb the structure’s behaviour in a fire is adequately represented as a series of isolated elements, i.e. it must be simple and conventional bb the consequence and scale of failure in the event of fire remains consistent with societal expectation.

180

210

240

Source: ISO 834

This should be framed in the context of current construction trends. Taller buildings are increasingly common, but such a scale is not consistent with the origins of most prescriptive guidance. Cellular spaces are less common, and contemporary architecture delivers large interconnected spaces. Sustainable design is also influencing material choice. As a result, fire resistance guidance and the test methods on which it relies are often applied to materials that behave very differently to the inert ones originally in mind. Finally, structures are more complicated. Large, open, connected spaces make greater demands on structural engineers and lead to more creative approaches, such as long-spanning transfer structures, cellular beams and so on. Standard testing and prescriptive design guidance did not envisage such modern features at their conception.

Keeping pace It would be reasonable to suggest that what the construction industry perceives to be common in terms of the context of prescriptive fire design guidance is increasingly less so. The limitations of

prescriptive design are likely to become ever more apparent as its boundaries are pushed. At best, blind application may result in uneconomical fire resistance design that hinders innovation and sustainable development. At worst, a building may perform inadequately. Those involved in fire resistance design face some tough questions. Is the ‘one size fits all’ approach that originated in the 1800s still appropriate? Should there be recourse to prescriptive methods without question, regardless of their scope of application? Or should designers, where appropriate, demonstrate performance by alternative means? As far as the building control community is concerned, can all designers be relied on to act competently? Amid what is often a multitude of competing project goals and constraints, and as prescriptive fire resistance design remains the norm, the answer will generally be no. As lead approvers, however, should building control bodies force the issue? Without applying unnecessary levels of scrutiny for scenarios that are clearly simple, should they, where appropriate, challenge designers to demonstrate safety by means commensurate with a given project’s complexity? Unless they do, it is not a given that the life safety requirements of the Building Regulations will always be achieved. b Eoin O’Loughlin is a senior fire engineer and leads Trenton Fire’s London team eoin.oloughlin@trentonfire.co.uk Dr Danny Hopkin is Trenton Fire’s Head of Fire Engineering danny.hopkin@trentonfire.co.uk

Related competencies include Fire safety

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6 17

RICS B U I L DI N G Control J OURN AL

Hea lt h and saf et y

Peter Martin considers the health problems posed by rats

Smelling a rat

rban legend has it that you are never more than six feet away from a rat. While research suggests that rats are not nearly so prevalent as this, they are regularly encountered – dead and alive – by building control surveyors in the course of their work. As rats can carry a range of diseases, including the potentially fatal Weil’s disease, it is important to take appropriate precautions when surveying. In the UK the brown rat, Rattus norvegicus, is one of three commensal rodents; that is, creatures closely associated with human activities. Sewers, canals and rivers are prime brown rat habitats, as are run-down or derelict areas near readily accessible food sources, including takeaways and areas where rubbish has accumulated. Such is the rats’ affinity with water that problems associated with them are compounded after flooding. They can – and do – live practically anywhere.

Infection There can be few building control surveyors who have never come across a rat at some stage in their career. All surveyors should be aware that exposure to rat urine or water that is contaminated with it can lead to Weil’s disease, which is a serious form of leptospirosis. The bacterium that causes the infection can enter the body through cuts and scratches, and through the lining of the mouth, throat and eyes. Following initial flu-like symptoms, a severe headache, vomiting and muscle pain, Weil’s disease can cause jaundice, meningitis and kidney failure. In severe cases, it can be fatal. Clearly the risks are highest where there is evidence of an ongoing rat infestation, but infection is still possible even where their presence has been eradicated. 1 8 N ovember / D ecember 2 0 1 6

Rats can also transmit other diseases to humans, which include listeria, rat-bite fever, salmonellosis, toxicaria and toxoplasmosis. Before conducting a survey, building control surveyors should follow the advice in the RICS guidance note Surveying Safely, 1st edition, and carry out a pre-assessment of the hazards and risks that are likely to be encountered on site. For instance, are there rats known to be present, or is the nature, condition or location of the building such that you might presume their presence? Are there toilet or washing facilities available on the site? Before you set out, make sure that any cuts or grazes are covered up with waterproof dressings. Having gloves and plasters with you is a good additional precaution. During a survey, be particularly vigilant in areas such as basements and roof voids. Be aware of the following signs that there may be rats present: bb electrical cables, rubber pipework or pipe insulation that have been chewed bb rat droppings, which have a characteristically spindle-like shape, are around 20mm long and are usually found in groups bb smudge marks along walls or hairs caught on low-level brickwork bb scratching or scurrying noises in the walls and above ceilings bb nests and piled nest materials. Even in the absence of clear evidence, it does not necessarily mean that rats are not present. If you cut yourself during a survey, you should immediately wash your skin with soap and running water before covering the cut with waterproof dressings. Avoid hand-to-mouth contact. Try to take your breaks away from the building, and always wash your hands before you have anything to eat or drink. Image © Shutterstock

Attacks are rare While rats rarely attack humans, you should never corner a live rat: it could jump at you and give you a vicious bite. Equally, do not touch a dead rat with unprotected hands. If you really need to move the rat, you must wear gloves. After a survey, if you think you may have been in contact with rat urine and you begin to experience flu-like symptoms, you should seek medical attention as soon as possible. Do not wait until jaundice sets in because early treatment is essential to shorten the illness and reduce its severity. The Health and Safety Executive leaflet Leptospirosis: Are you at risk? INDG84(rev1) includes a card to show your doctor (http://bit.ly/1YIFFLX). Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013, the executive must be notified of any confirmed instance of Weil’s disease. Infections caused by rats are very rare, but it is wise to take the recommended precautions. Surveyors should also be aware of dangers to health from creatures including mice, birds – especially pigeons – bees, wasps and other insects such as lice, ticks and fleas, and biohazards including bird droppings (guano), birds’ nests and anthrax, the latter of which can be present in very old haired plaster. C Peter Martin is a partner at Malcolm Hollis peter.martin@malcolmhollis.com

Surveying safely guidance note is available at www.rics.org/surveyingsafely

Related competencies include Health and safety

Fire

Hugh Johnson explains the benefits of installing sprinklers in schools

A sprinkling of value

oth passive and active fire precautions contribute to securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of building users and conserving fuel and power; they also indirectly prevent excessive use of water. So far as the use of sprinklers in schools is concerned, though, the argument has tended merely to be about whether they provide property protection or add value in terms of the health and safety of firefighters, pupils and staff.

Cost–benefit analysis

If you only wish to make such a pecuniary consideration, then a cost–benefit analysis will still prove that the installation of sprinklers is worthwhile from a rebuilding point of view, as well as allowing greater flexibility in terms of layout and space and the potential for future extensions, while reducing fire resistance periods, boundary conditions and the number of escape stairways. From a Building Regulations perspective, the guidance in Approved Document B does not generally invoke the use of sprinklers, but Building Bulletin 100 does at least recommend their use, and until recently all schools were almost invariably fitted with sprinklers. But Building Bulletin 100 is, like Part B, guidance rather than regulation. In the adjournment debate of the House of Commons on 1 March 2007, Conservative MP Michael Howard sought and won a commitment that all new schools built, with the exception of a few low-risk ones, were expected to have sprinklers fitted, and this is stated in clause 1.6 of Building Bulletin 100. Although this requirement still applies in Scotland and Wales, the most recent guidance as far as England is concerned is from the Department of Education in 2014, after consultation with the Education Funding Agency. This says that both Approved Document B and Building Bulletin 100 demonstrate ways of complying with Part B, Fire Safety, and that for schools, Part B of the Building Regulations will typically be satisfied where the fire safety guidance in the bulletin is followed. While the bulletin has a lot to say about sprinklers, they are designed for property protection and not to meet fire safety standards. Building Bulletin 100 goes on to state that the risks highlighted are about arson attacks. You do not have to follow the guidance in the bulletin, but could use BS 9999 or take a fire safety engineering approach. If you do follow the bulletin, however, you do not have to use the risk assessment that goes with it, but can take any reasonable approach that will establish whether or not a school is vulnerable to arson attacks. Image © Shutterstock

A cost–benefit analysis will still prove installation of sprinklers is worthwhile from a rebuilding point of view Revised bulletin In July, the Department of Education published a consultation on the revision of Building Bulletin 100 that removed many of the above requirements (http://bit.ly/2bbaB9g). It now states: “The Building Regulations do not require the installation of fire sprinkler suppression systems in school buildings for life safety and therefore BB 100 no longer includes an expectation that most new school buildings will be fitted with them.” The Building Regulations never did require the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems for life safety, though, so nothing has actually changed in Approved Document B. Why then, has this been altered in Building Bulletin 100, and who has instigated and authorised this change? If you have ever had the unfortunate experience of witnessing a school being destroyed by fire – including the loss of coursework and exam work prepared by teachers and pupils, then waiting a year for the school to be rebuilt and in the meantime travelling to temporary facilities some distance away with all the problems this entails – and still believe that it does not affect the health, safety, welfare and convenience of pupils, parents and teachers alike, then you are burying your head in the sand for the sake of economy. Sprinklers are 24/7 firefighters, and will be required more and more while the numbers of human firefighters are continually reduced and based further away as local fire stations are closed in favour of rationalisation and centralisation. b

Hugh Johnson is the former Secretary-General of the Consortium of European Building Control hugh.johnson@cebc.eu

Related competencies include Fire safety

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 1 9

RICS B uilding Control J OURN AL

E t h ics

industryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future, with greater education and awareness across our sectors. Ethical values are important because: bbthey are an anchor to appropriate behaviours bbthey ensure consistency and clarity, irrespective of changing factors such as the state of the economy or varied business practices in different marketplaces.

Membership has grown dramatically since this photo was taken outside the UN last year

Fair competition and fair gain

Peter Bolton King reflects on the Rio Olympics and answers questions about the International Ethics Standards Coalition

By the time you read this, the Rio Olympics will have long finished, with thousands of column inches written about the achievements, the events, the winners and the losers. The 2016 games were hosted against a backdrop of complex challenges facing

Brazil that hit the headlines in the run-up to the tournament. These included corruption, political turmoil and the Zika public health crisis. I have visited the country several times, both for RICS and as chair of the International Ethics Standards (IES) Coalition, most recently for a major conference to talk about international standards. Great interest has been shown in the coalition and how this fast-growing group of almost 100 professional bodies, associations and standards-setting organisations is working to create the first set of globally applicable ethics principles for

2 0 â&#x20AC;&#x192; N ovember / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6

land, real estate, construction and infrastructure, and major Brazilian organisations working in our sectors have now joined us.

Why are ethics important? To err is human. Organisations operating in hyper-competitive commercial environments are under intense pressure to make money, and there is thus a greater risk of ethical breaches. Some situations faced by built environment professionals may not always have clear responses. This strengthens my belief that professional ethics must play a stronger role in our

People tell me that continuing scandals in businesses and sport are evidence that ethical values do not work. If they did, they argue, we would not have so many corporate failures and individuals who feel they need to cheat the system. While I can understand this cynicism, the current context highlights the need for more education about business ethics, not less. One RICS member commented that Enronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s code of ethics did not stop the huge scandal that caused its collapse: but if Enron had implemented the code properly and business ethics had played a more central role in its corporate culture, would the organisation still be here? It certainly might have had a better chance of survival. Education about ethics and related issues is as important as enforcement in terms of reducing the risk of poor conduct. Without it, dark corners in large and complex companies have a stronger chance of persisting. A colleague reminded me of the similarities and differences between the nature of competition in sport and business, referring to a little-reported incident that occurred during the 2012 London games. After winning a gold medal, a swimmer confessed to breaking the rules: although he was only allowed a single dolphin kick in the breaststroke, he admitted to doing several deliberately. He justified his actions by saying the rule was poorly policed and had to be

RI CS Building Control JOUR NAL

broken by any competitor who wanted to win. He was right about the first point, and arguably the second; the authorities didn’t take any action against him. Having trained all his life for his moment of glory, he ultimately put personal gain first, devaluing both his status as a sportsman and the Olympic ideal of fair play.

Winning in our world Do we promise a potential client that we will carry out work in a certain way, with the unspoken intention of cutting corners to save costs? The justification for winning a contract in this way is that the client got what they paid for – if unwittingly – which was no less than a competitor would have delivered. Depending on specific details, such behaviour could well be unethical and a breach of contract. Any surveyor acting in this way has forgotten what it means to be a professional, and devalues our profession.

Questions and answers Who belongs to the IES Coalition and why? Representative built environment and related professional bodies exist to guide, enhance and promote the professional, technical and ethical expertise of members. As a founding member of the coalition, RICS believes that bringing together non-profit organisations from across the sectors creates a powerful way to undertake extensive consultation, combining ethical knowledge about the built environment and related disciplines. By harmonising many existing codes of conduct, the coalition aims to establish an overarching standard. Do other professions have global ethics standards? The global accountancy profession, for instance, is governed by the International

Organisations operating in hyper-competitive commercial environments are under intense pressure to make money and there is a greater risk that ethical breaches may occur Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA), which issues ethical standards for professional accountants and its member bodies. Those such as the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants and Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are required to comply with the IESBA code of ethics. The IES document was drafted by an independent standards-setting committee (SSC), which was appointed by the coalition. How did they decide on its scope? This is the first global exercise of its kind for these sectors, and the IES SSC sought to align and identify universal fundamental principles as a basis on which to develop the first international ethics standards for land, real estate, construction and infrastructure. Each organisation that belongs to the coalition agreed to implement the final standard and is likely to provide advice to their members about related ethics issues. Don’t ethics codes need a central enforcement authority in order to work successfully? Of course enforcement plays a strong role in regulation. Setting ethics standards for 2.5m accountants globally has been a crucial role performed by IESBA since it was set up in 1977. Its board provides adoption and implementation support and promotes good ethical practices globally,

but does not have a direct enforcement role. All the existing IES Coalition members already have their own code or rules of ethics. It will be up to individual organisations to ensure compliance with the ethics standard and each will have different disciplinary and enforcement mechanisms. How can global principles be applied across complex world regions? International standards such as those operated by the IESBA are based on principles, not rules. This makes them globally applicable: professionals have to think carefully about their specific application and must exercise sound professional judgement in deciding on the correct behaviour and action. The IES SSC undertook a three-month global consultation, which attracted nearly 400 formal responses from many countries. We believe this feedback and proactive consultation will help ensure that the final standard can be understood by all. Are the participating organisations expected to give up the codes of conduct that they already have in favour of the IES? The coalition aims to introduce, at an international level, one shared set of values reflecting principles on which the entire profession can agree, and to which all existing codes of conduct will conform. They will be free to

retain their own more detailed codes if they wish, on the understanding that they do not conflict with IES.

Comments from coalition trustees One of the UK-based IES Coalition trustees, Peter Robinson of the Association of International Property Professionals, commented: “In the fast-moving and ever-changing world of international property sales, ethics are vitally important to remind the profession where the true ‘North Star’ of fixed standards lies. “These should be transparent and unify trade and consumers, underwriting any sensible company.” Trust can mean different things in different cultures, but another IES Trustee, lawyer Eric Finn from the International Right of Way Association in the USA, commented: “Of primary interest to all real-estate professionals is to be a trusted advisor to their clients and the general public. “A common grounding in ethical behaviour, at the local community level and on a global scale, is essential to establish such trust.” C Peter Bolton King FRICS is RICS Property Standards Director pboltonking@rics.org

www.ies-coalition.org RICS has issued comprehensive guidance at www.rics.org/ responsiblebusiness A full toolkit about RICS’ existing ethics principles can be found at www.rics.org/ethics Extensive guidance on conflicts of interest is forthcoming.

Related competencies include Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice

N ovember / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6 2 1

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

I nternationa l

Seeing things clearly

Continuing his series from Australia, Mark Anderson looks at emergency lighting

he 2016 amendments to the Australian National Construction Code have clarified the Council of Australian Governments’ intent for emergency lighting and signs (http://bit.ly/2c1o6ZU). A building needs to be provided with a system that ensures sufficient visibility to enable exits, paths of travel and any obstacles to be identified, and this system should also activate instantaneously on the failure of artificial lighting.

Verification

The verification method outlined in the code states that illumination of 0.2 lux is required at floor level in the path of travel and 1 lux in a fire-isolated stairway at tread level; the former is equivalent to full moonlight and the latter to a candle at 1m distance in darkness. Verification can take the form of calculations, which – in my opinion – should be peer-reviewed and consist of on-site testing with light meters. The normal calculation technique is the lumen method, which determines the average illuminance on the flat surface and makes some broad assumptions regarding lumen output deterioration coefficients, the use factor and maintenance factor. This verification can also be carried out by 3D modelling. Nevertheless, this level of luminance may not be good enough for those who are visually impaired. Vision Australia estimated in 2013 that there are 357,000 people in the country who are blind or who have limited vision (http://bit.ly/2cAIIbJ). It is therefore important to consider whether the building way-finding system ensures that the level of illumination provided enables adequate means of egress for such people.

Emergency exit signs Only 38% of people register the presence of an emergency exit sign during an emergency (http://bit.ly/2bO1k3I). It is not known how useful the “running man” signage is in such circumstances to those who have limited vision, but a visually impaired person who does not know the building may become confused, and this can lead to unsafe situations. Improved exit signage – especially in stairways, stating the level and location – is already required, but the need for enhanced signage for those with limited vision should be investigated. The need for enhanced signage has been acknowledged by the Australian Building Codes Board, and although it strives towards better regulation, it has not fully addressed issues relating to visual impairment. It would seem prudent to adopt more stringent regulation so that disabled persons unfamiliar with the building layout are able to evacuate using a tactile map, or another way-finding method such as audible signage. 22 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

If considering such approaches, it would be beneficial to adopt ISO 16069 for safety signs and way-finding guidance systems, which would ensure that the design function provides for visual reinforcement, location, visibility and colour, and avoids confusion at junctions. Approaches adopting graphical information such as the running man sign, directional arrows, guidance lines on walls, floor markings, door-handle markings and stair-nosing strips have been proven to help those who have reduced vision (http://bit.ly/2bx5Ybv). The international standard for exits is the running man symbol (see image, above). If an internationally recognised symbol for the disabled were also adopted, this would reinforce existing symbols and be more inclusive. The addition of accessible signs may also help, enabling accessible egress routes to be identified.

Audible signage Audible signage provides a visually impaired person with relevant verbal information to allow rapid movement, and has been shown to provide safer and easier egress from a building. Directional sound evacuation systems have also been developed to help visually impaired users find exits in the event of emergency, as well as helping unimpaired users should smoke obscure the illuminated sign. It may also be possible to have smartphones and other mobile devices access the building management system so they can be used as a way-finding system, which would enhance safety during an evacuation. While the regulations require adequate illuminated egress and way-finding for the majority, they fail to address satisfactorily issues faced by those with visual impairment. With the use of new technology, these issues could be solved easily. C Mark Anderson is a senior building certifier at KPMG SGA manderson4@kpmg.com.au

UP DATE

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

UPDATE Fire conference The BRE Fire Research Conference, held in Watford in June, highlighted current fire safety issues for the built environment. The keynote lecture was given by Prof. Colin Bailey, Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester and an international authority in structural fire engineering. As well as writing a series of seminal fire design guides, he was lead expert in the review of structural fire design for London landmarks the Shard, the Pinnacle and Heron Tower, among others. Prof. Bailey discussed the legacy of large-scale fire testing at BRE Cardington, which yielded critical data on structural fire behaviour that continues to inform the preparation of safer, more robust and more cost-effective designs. Together with data from real fires and the development of codified performance-based approaches, the work has provided tools to make better predictions about a building’s performance during a fire and to assess risks more accurately. Prof. Bailey argued that performance-based design using advanced models can better respond as we push the limits of structural engineering with longer, thinner sections and new materials. A prescriptive approach dictated by building standards and system fire testing is less adaptable to the impacts of new technology and materials. Referring to fire data on multi-storey structures, he explained that while any visible degree of vertical displacement in the beams will typically necessitate replacement, it does not lead to building collapse – a point that has been acknowledged by insurers. Hence an increase in beam fire protection does not necessarily improve performance, with evidence showing that 40–55% of beams in multi-storey steel structures can be left unprotected. A performance-based approach therefore provides the confidence to target fire protection where it is required. Tom Lennon, Principal Consultant in BRE’s Fire Safety Group, outlined research and experimentation on the fire resistance and fire safety of compartmentation in roof voids commissioned by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). This forms Workstream 3 of a number of linked projects to review the efficacy of fire safety provisions in Part B of the Building Regulations. Findings confirm that, when applied correctly, current guidance on roof void compartments, cavity barriers and fire-related dampeners does ensure requisite performance. But a number of issues compromising compliance have been highlighted, including lack of inspection during installation and poor-quality work, notably gaps in compartmentation around the cavity barriers, as well as site techniques affecting the assumed level of compression of the barrier. DCLG guidance regarding compartmentation in roof voids is expected in the near future. n www.bre.co.uk Images © Shutterstock

Fire-safe cabling

The majority of deaths in fires are caused by inhaling dangerous fumes. Cables that run between floors and in walls can release toxic fumes, so alternatives that are less reactive to fire and produce significantly less opaque smoke and acidic gas are now being widely used in new buildings. By reducing the danger and density of fumes released during a fire, these cables allow more time to escape and offer a safer working environment for rescue teams, in turn saving lives. Dario Giordani is European Product Manager Fire Safety at Nexans www.nexans.co.uk

Fire protection project

The Association for Specialist Fire Protection is working with the BRE Trust on a project to conduct research into different types of passive fire protection systems that can contribute to the overall resilience of a building in the event of a fire. n http://bit.ly/1SvBU8d NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 2 3

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

UPDATE

Standards

UPDATE

International Standards International Construction Measurement Standards Consultation due soon.

International Ethics Standards Due to publish in 2017.

Housing report

The Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI) has welcomed a report on the quality of new-build housing from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment. More homes, fewer complaints makes 10 proposals for putting consumers at the heart of the new-build housing business model (http://bit.ly/2c3WDUE). In its written and oral evidence to the group’s inquiry, the ACAI made a number of suggestions for ways in which the model could be improved to benefit these consumers, while also supporting collaborative and innovative provision of building control services. In particular, the ACAI recommended that regulation of public-sector building control bodies – which are not currently subject to any form of independent approval or auditing – should be considered, and for a single regulatory body to cover both private and public building control bodies. It also called for a duty of care to be implemented when an approved inspector is contracted by any homeowner.

Recently published

BIM for Building Surveyors guidance note n www.rics.org/bimsurveyors

IPMS: Residential Buildings n https://ipmsc.org/standards/ residential/

Conference

Net zero buildings

The Property Care Association’s second annual International Invasive Weed Conference, “Risks, Roots & Research”, takes place on 22 November at the Institute of Engineering Technology, Savoy Place, London. n http://bit.ly/2bV7DEE

The World Green Building Council has launched a strategy that aims to ensure all buildings are net zero by 2050 through a combination of energy-efficiency measures and clean generation. “Net zero” refers to buildings that either use net zero energy, or have net zero carbon emissions. n http://bit.ly/28VDGDL

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

24 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

APC online platform

Many candidates often express concern about the different challenges they face when trying to complete their APC tasks, such as time management, how to demonstrate competencies and how to prepare effectively for the final assessment. In response, RICS has launched Compass, an online platform that gives access to bite-sized online learning and other training resources, which will help you with your assessment activities and enable you to gain the knowledge and skills you need in order to be fully prepared for the final assessment. Compass’s features are as follows. bb My Resources: a tailor-made training package with content targeted to your personal APC learning needs, to ensure you can access support that will help you develop the necessary skills. bb Messaging system: identifies local events that may be of interest and relevant upcoming courses that will help with your APC. bb Competency encyclopaedia: providing an insight into what RICS competencies mean in the context of your role, this will help you understand

what expertise you need to demonstrate in your APC. bb Course browser: a dedicated section for you to manage your training, where you can track courses to which you’ve signed up or that you have completed, and browse others to help you develop the skills needed to pass your APC. bb CPD tracker: the personal CPD record will help you track the hours you have completed and help you identify skills you need to develop further. bb Final assessment: RICS training materials are readily available to help enhance your knowledge so you can achieve MRICS status.

bb Ethics course: this e-learning course has been designed to test your understanding of RICS’ ethical standards. Compass will enrol and track your progress automatically; all you need to do is complete it. As a candidate, you have automatic access to the website – just visit rics.org/compass and log in through your RICS account. Irena Andrisevic is an RICS digital marketing executive iandrisevic@rics.org

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 11/04/2016 09:50

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 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

Building surveying: principles in practice Develop the skills and knowledge needed as a commercial or residential building surveyor across the built environment through our six month distance learning course. • Determine the appropriate processes of construction, alteration and improvement • Identify the impact of regulations and standards on building surveying • Create a client brief in order to deliver their requirements • Ascertain the defects likely to be encountered across different buildings.

To find out more: t 024 7686 8584 w academy.rics.org/distancebs e training@rics.org

RICS Expert Witness Training This training will equip experts with the knowledge, practical skills and confidence to prepare for and conduct an expert meeting effectively.

What will you learn? • The benefits of using an agreed agenda • How to prepare using the case preparation model • Using the topic box model to structure the meeting and as a way to effectively question the other expert • The reasons for areas of agreement and disagreement • How to work effectively towards the Joint Statement and how to draft it.

To find out more: t 024 7686 8584 w rics.org/expertwitnesstraining e drstraining@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 26 NO V EMBER/DECEMBER 2 016

BUILD YOUR OWN A DV ERTISING

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

FUTURE AT jhai

REGIONAL MANAGER

YORKSHIRE and NORTH-EAST (Wakefield Office) There are no career ceilings at jhai and our current Regional Manager is moving up to a national technical role. We need someone to step into his shoes and hit the ground running. You’ll be a qualified Building Control surveyor with experience in all types of commercial and domestic work and you’ll also need to have excellent technical knowledge. But we don’t want all your days to be spent plan checking and inspecting on site: you’ll need proven management ability plus the personality, commitment and drive to inspire your team to provide a consistently excellent service to our clients. You’ll also have the talent to convince and prove to existing and prospective clients that there is no better Building Control option than jhai. Of course we’ll provide excellent remuneration depending on experience plus a range of benefits and performance bonuses.

Interested?

Email your CV and covering letter to: rhys.whitehead@jhai.co.uk and stephen.barnshaw@jhai.co.uk Or call Rhys on 07800 968401 for an informal chat

PROJECT MANAGERS – WAKEFIELD & BRISTOL OFFICES QUALIFIED and EXPERIENCED BUILDING CONTROL SURVEYORS You’ll be working on a wide range of exciting and interesting construction projects and you’ll be part of a national team with support from industry leading technical specialists. Of course we offer excellent salaries and benefits commensurate with qualifications and experience. jhai is committed to your professional aspirations and there will be scope to specialise and develop your skills in any of our associated construction consultancies.

Interested?

Email your CV and covering letter to: rhys.whitehead@jhai.co.uk and stephen.barnshaw@jhai.co.uk

Or for Wakefield call Rhys on 07800 968401 & for Bristol call Simon on 07964 054732

For an informal chat

jhai will provide Building Control for over 17,000 construction projects this year alone, helping architects, builders, developers and homeowners across England and Wales comply with Building Regulations as efficiently and as profitably as possible. 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

www.jhai.co.uk Education & Training

NO V E MBE R / DEC E MBE R 2 0 1 6 2 7

APPROVAL

System Approval

Accessibility

Energy Assessments

Inspections

Fire Safety