Building Control Journal September-October 2015

Building Control Journal

Time for a revolution Diversity is a strategy PG.

6

Dealing with disaster

Legacy of exposure

Closing the gap

September/October 2015

Lessons learnt from the Shirley Towers fire

Factors to take into account when assessing asbestos risk

Part L still key to cutting carbon emissions

rics.org/journals

PG.

8

PG.

10

PG.

12

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

A DV E RTI S I N G

Building Control Surveyors x 2 Location: Bromley Civic Centre Full Time/Permanent Salary range £30,684 - £37,632 (BR11-BR13) Bromley is London’s largest borough where recent development and investment has seen Bromley prosper and makes it a place where people want to live and work.

We have a number of vacancies in the Building Control Team and can offer you the opportunity to develop your skills in a busy supported team as well as a career grade structure to move into management. Starting salary is dependent on experience but will be competitive. The right candidates will have the opportunity to be fast tracked with adequate support and training.

We are looking for qualified or part qualified Building Control Surveyors who are well organised and have a high level of professional ability in a wide range of building control areas.

You need to be a good negotiator with a clear understanding of the construction processes and relevant legislation. Strong communication skills and the ability to explain complex legal requirements in simple terms is essential.

Closing date 20 September 2015 If you would like an informal chat about what Bromley can offer please contact Steve Moore – Head of Building Control on 020 8313 4315.

You are required to have a car/vehicle available for you to use for business purposes as required.

Ref 6061 Essential - Driving a car/vehicle is an integral and regular feature of the job; and therefore having a current driving licence and use of own car/vehicle are deemed to be essential and compulsory for the performance of the job and the Council also operates a no smoking policy.

To apply; please register at https://recruitment.bromley.gov.uk/wrl/ the advert can be located quickly by searching by Vacancy Group and choosing ‘Maintenance/Construction’ from the drop down menu.

Equal Opportunities Statement We are committed to achieving equal opportunities in employment and service delivery.

We offer a generous package including competitive pay, career average pension scheme, flexible working practices and the Bromley REAL benefits scheme; Childcare Vouchers, Cycle2Work and a wide range of unique discounts.

www.bromley.gov.uk

Building Regulation Surveyor £31,800 - £48,318 p/a

It’s Building Control – but not as you know it.

There has never been a better time to join EBCS as we embark on a brave new journey to provide and expand the best building control surveying service in Surrey.

We are looking for a talented Building Regulation Surveyor to join us on a permanent basis and help us lead the way in delivering a first-class, innovative and professional service.

You will be a member of a team providing a range of professional and technical skills and advice to private clients and to discharge Local Authority/ Council delegated powers and duties as required under legislation.

There is an extensive rewards programme including performance-related pay and profit share.

For further details please see the recruitment section on our website www.ebcsltd.co.uk

Experience/qualifications required: • The post require full membership of RICS/CABE (or Incorporated Member status with a relevant degree).

• Broad knowledge and understanding in all aspects of Building Control procedures and legislation is essential.

• You will have extensive experience of inspecting domestic and commercial buildings for compliance with the Building Regulations and allied legislation and will have previously worked within Building Control or as an Approved Inspector.

• Knowledge and experience of inspecting dangerous structures, demolitions and contraventions is also required.

• Team worker who is self-motivated, organised, methodical, and flexible and works under pressure to meet targets.

• A willingness to help us develop our service and increase our customer base.

• Full UK driving licence and have daily use of a motor vehicle to carry out site visits

Please contact Mark Webb: Phone 01372 474798 e-mail mark.webb@ebcsltd.co.uk

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om 2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

C O NTENTS

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

contents

Front cover: ©Shutterstock

CO N TAC TS

4 Making progress

15 View from the chair

6 Time for a revolution

16 Condensation

Martin Conlon reflects on initiatives to advance the profession

BUI L DI N G C O N TR OL JOU R NAL Editor: Barney Hatt T +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E bhatt@rics.org Building Control Journal is the journal of the Building Control Professional Group Advisory group: Dave Baker OBE (Robust Details Ltd), Alan Cripps (RICS), Michael Morgan (Butler & Young Group), Anthony Oloyede (LABC), Anna Thompson (LABC) Published by: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T +44 (0)24 7686 8555 www.rics.org ISSN: ISSN 0265-6493 (Print) ISSN 1759-3360 (Online) Building Control Journal is available on annual subscription.

All enquiries from non-RICS members for institutional or company subscriptions should be directed to: Proquest – Online Institutional Access E sales@proquest.co.uk T +44 (0)1223 215512 for online subscriptions or SWETS Print Institutional Access E info@uk.swets.com T +44 (0)1235 857500 for print subscriptions To take out a personal subscription, members and non-members should contact Licensing Manager Louise Weale E lweale@rics.org

Editorial and production manager: Toni Gill

Diversity is a strategy, not an issue, says Amanda Clack

8 Dealing with disaster

Mick Johns and Chris Stephens set out the lessons learnt from the fatal Shirley Towers fire

10 Legacy of exposure

John Richards looks at the issues in assessing asbestos risk

12 Closing the gap

Part L is still a key tool in the drive to reduce carbon emissions, says Rob Warren

14 On course to charter

APC chairman Gary Blackman describes a typical interview day

Anthony Ley explains how Building Regulations have responded the problem of condensation

18 A modern service

Paul Wilkins responds to issues on the role of the control body

20 Under review

Part P is now well understood, but compliance problems remain, as Phil Hammond explains

22 Level best

Amy Cory describes how the Passivhaus standard helped meet energy efficiency goals at the University of Leicester

Charles Deeds tracks his APC route to membership

Journal goes interactive

Sub-editor: Gill Rastall Designer: Craig Bowyer Creative director: Mark Parry Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros

QSanand Constructio Your RICS Journal is now available inRICS ISSUU, Conference interactive page-turning digital reader.

Ideal for 2015 20 May 2015 reading on a tablet or desktop, it allows you toVictoria, ‘clip’ London etc.Venues, and share part or whole articles and isThiscompatible must attend event will examine the crucial role the Qua has to play in delivering the Construction 2025 targets. Brin speakers from across the construction sector, this c with android or iOS mobile devices. expert give insight into the demands on the sector at a time when

is a dominant concern and will examine the evolving role of adapts to a changing market.

Once signed in, just go to your usual Key journal sessions will address some of the most pressing concerns profession including, a CDM regulations update, the impact of B of the QS in infrastructure, implications of early supply chain eng home page and click on the link or follow adding value across the profession. the link from your regular email alert.

Book your place online today:

20222 RICS RICS QS Conference Advert 174x127.5mm-AW.indd 1

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

www.rics.org/journals

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 3

rics.org/qsco

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN

Martin Conlon reflects on the many initiatives underway to advance the profession

Making progress Conference programme

I cannot believe that the year is more than halfway through. Returning from Christmas in January, I set myself several targets to meet for 2015. Some have been achieved, others started, but quite a few have not past first base yet. I think that this is typical of the hectic pace we all experience today and the immense challenges we have to meet in an ever changing world.

We have a set of amended regulations to get to grips with this autumn, including a new concept of optional standards at the behest of the planning authorities and the local plan for the area.

There will probably be confusion in the first instance but one thing that I am certain of is that the building control profession will conduct itself with professionalism and dignity.

One of the key events of the second half of the year is the Building Control Conference. It will be held in the Midlands again this year because many people find it more convenient than travelling to London.

The programme has been carefully selected to ensure that there is something for everyone.

I am very pleased to announce that there will be a parallel session for student members who are preparing for the APC, to be led by Jaspal Virdee Dhanjal, who is very well known in building control circles. It is intended that more help and guidance be given to candidates to raise the pass rate, which at the moment is woefully low.

So if you or a colleague are looking at the APC then book onto this session because you will find it extremely useful.

The APC is under review and will be radically overhauled and rationalised over the next few years.

There are currently far too many competencies on the list with some of them not reflecting modern practice, including – I believe – sustainability.

4 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

The APC is under review and will be radically overhauled and rationalised over the next few years to reflect modern practice Professional group communication One of the initiatives I have yet to complete is the expansion of the professional group overseas. We have a fledging group in the Middle East, but there is still a lot of work to do.

I recently attended the annual day for chairs of professional groups where the theme was international expansion. If you are not aware of PG 2020, it is a RICS initiative to look at how all the professional groups will function and communicate in the year 2020.

The use of social media and technology were discussed, including ways that RICS can develop its online communications.

How we can gain access to the latest information was also covered, with discussion of setting up topic interest groups, where the members might not

be all from the same professional group.

If you are interested in flood defences, for example (a topic relevant all RICS surveyors), papers would be emailed to you, detailing discussion forums where professional groups including land, building surveying, commercial property or building control could communicate and keep each other up to date.

These ideas are in their infancy, but if you have any thoughts or opinions let me know.

Finally, the journal editor Barney Hatt is always looking for new ideas for topics and features, so please email him at bhatt@rics.org. b

Martin Conlon is Chairman of the Building Control Professional Group martin@assentbc.co.uk

UPDATE

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

UPDATE Building Control Conference 2015 22 September, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Birmingham This year’s conference opens with a keynote speech on the latest changes to the Building Regulations and will include presentations on planning policy, surveying technology, talent and training, inclusive design, fire engineering, and a break-out afternoon session for APC candidates. n www.rics.org/bcconference

Uncertified cladding blamed for blaze An apartment building fire in the Azerbaijan capital Baku, in which 16 people died, has reinforced the urgent need for international building standards, Alan Cripps, RICS Associate Director of Built Environment has said (see Building Control Journal November/December 2014).

According to the country’s chief prosecutor Zakir Garalov, the bad quality of exterior plastic covering the 16-storey building contributed to the blaze in May. Garalov said the stryofoam cladding had not been checked or certified. It was installed in June as part of attempts to quickly spruce up a number of Baku buildings ahead of the European Games. The government has ordered inflammable cladding material to be removed from similar buildings, and set up an investigation.

Encouraging diversity RICS has launched a new initiative to make the land, property and construction sector more inclusive and diverse.

The Inclusive Employer Quality Mark is designed to help firms gain a competitive advantage.

Register your interest with RICS External Affairs Director Kim Worts. n kworts@rics.org

Journal goes interactive Your RICS Building Control Journal is now available as an interactive page-turning digital reader. Ideal for reading on a tablet or desktop, it allows you to ‘clip’ and share part or whole articles and is compatible with android or iOS mobile devices. Once signed in, just go to your usual journal home page and click on the link or follow the link from your regular email alert.

3D printing joins design tools Engineers at Arup are developing radical new designs for metal joints to be used in structures, with possible implications for Approved Document A. Using the latest 3D printing techniques and computer models on the tension and compression stresses at nodes, the engineers are generating lightweight designs that can strip out weight and costs.

Skanska recently used 3D printing to produce nylon architectural covers for complex steel nodes on the 6 Bevis Marks roof extension in London. n www.arup.com

BRE house debuts quality mark BRE opened the Weinberger e4 brick house to mark the 10-year anniversary of its Innovation Park. It is the first building to be assessed to BRE’s new Home Quality Mark and employs a fabric first approach using a clay building envelope. n www.bre.co.uk

In brief...

RICS training 1 October, London Health and safety in the built environment n www.rics.org/hsbe 7 October, London Fire safety in blocks of flats n www.rics.org/flatfires E-learning Approved Document G n www.rics.org/adg BS9999: The concept n www.rics.org/bsconcept

Guidance notes RICS has published two guidance notes: bb The Mundic problem, 3rd edition covers the resulting deterioration of concrete building materials. n www.rics.orgmundic bb Measured surveys of land, buildings and utilities, 3rd edition covers the use of survey accuracy band, taking into consideration client requirements for scale, independent metadata and digital data handling environments. n www.rics.org/mslbu

Made to measure bb Alexander Aronsohn, RICS Director of Technical International Standards, has set out RICS work in developing consistent global property standards. The full article can be read in the September-October issue of the Property Journal. n www.rics.org/pjseptoct15

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 5

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

DIVERSITY

Diversity is a strategy, not an issue, says Amanda Clack

Joining up for a revolution

A

revolution is taking place in the land, property and construction professions, which are seen by many as made up of an aging, declining membership, out of touch with the modern world.

The struggle is not just confined to surveying. According to the Edge Commission’s Collaboration for change report on the future of the UK's design and construction industries, detractors see a tendency towards protectionism, resistance to change, and the preservation of hierarchies within the professions (http://bit.ly/1Ely4Hd).

RICS and other bodies have worked hard to reinvigorate the sector, but there is still much that can and should be done.

More than 50% of RICS members are over the age of 50, and only 13% of the membership is female (15% in the UK).

The organisation has a strong focus on all aspects of diversity and inclusion, especially attracting and retaining women in the profession.

The built environment profession clearly lags behind other industries on gender diversity. To increase the number of women in leadership roles and the pipeline of future female leaders, the key is to see diversity as a business investment, not a problem to be solved.

The RICS Futures report looked at the implications of the rapid changes in the land and built environment sector up to 2030. It suggested ways we could improve the resilience and relevance of our profession. Winning the war for talent 6   SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

was a key area that emerged as essential to our future (www.rics.org/futures).

Each year, the property and construction profession welcomes and loses more than 400,000 employees. If we do not address diversity and inclusion as part of business strategies, we miss over 50% of potential employees. This creates a skills gap significant enough to threaten the future viability of our industry. In construction, without more talent in the industry, Britain will stop building by 2019.

However, the business case for diversity goes deeper than this broad skills gap. The built environment industry is a global profession.

National geographical boundaries do not exist in today’s business world.

The challenge is to reflect the diversity of our clients in our own workforces.

The outcomes of doing so are tangible and proven delivering enhanced profits, increased returns for investors, and greater productivity.

As a profession, we continue to make fundamental mistakes. According to the RICS and Macdonald & Company Rewards and Attitudes Survey 2015, women frequently earn less for doing the same job as their male counterpart (http://bit.ly/1FYo1ZP).

Company policies can make it difficult for women to return to work after having children, and unconscious bias continues to plague our industry.

Diversity campaign Attracting a diverse workforce is the focus of the RICS campaign, Surveying the Future, which aims to demonstrate

the breadth and range of careers in the industry. To support employers in attracting and retaining a more varied talent pool to run the businesses of the future, we need a coordinated approach, and we want to lead by example.

To remain competitive and relevant in the future, it makes sense for businesses to reflect the diversity of their clients and the societies in which they operate. A Ferguson Partners study of 160 Real Estate Investment Trusts found that those with at least one woman on their board for more than three years on average produced annual shareholder growth rates 2.6 percentage points higher than their peers. This increased to 3.6 percentage points over five years (http://bit.ly/1L2VBlL).

However, too few young people understand what surveyors do.

Chartered surveyors themselves would be forgiven for not comprehending the full breadth of the profession, which covers more than 270 different roles across 17 specialisms. They are involved in projects as diverse as building Olympic stadiums, working with the

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

l Delegates at the RICS Diversity and Inclusion Conference, where the Inclusive Employer Quality Mark was launched

Retaining a diverse workforce

Image © Shutterstock

Disasters Emergency Committee, and aiding the United Nations to ensure global food security.

Through initiatives such as Class of Your Own, in partnership with Design Engineer Construct!, RICS is helping to educate young people about the different roles available within the built environment (http://bit.ly/KvoQVm).

As RICS Chief Executive Sean Tompkins has said: “Too many people think this is a ‘closed industry’, which isn’t the case.” To move beyond this reputation, role models are vital. The RICS diversity campaign is working hard to get more women into the public eye. By highlighting the pool of talented professionals who are shaping the world we live in, we hope to attract more women to careers in the sector.

RICS is uniquely placed to establish partnerships linking employers, professional bodies and educators.

By doing so, we can better understand supply and demand for talent in our sector and the type of skills sought out by firms.

Creating a diverse industry is not just about encouraging different people into the profession; retaining talented individuals a key challenge, and an essential part of business strategy.

An ageing workforce and aspirations of work/life balance, especially by women who choose to have children and do not wish to return to long and demanding work hours, are affecting employee retention rates. Flexible working policies are frequently cited as a way to encourage women to return to work. However, organisations also need to truly support and encourage this flexibility, making it a part of corporate business strategy.

A recent report from Ernst & Young (EY) found a vacuum in the female leadership pipeline in the property industry. Although women featured strongly in entry level and administrative positions, the numbers dropped off dramatically further up the ladder.

The reasons for this were wide ranging, including a lack of flexible working, detrimental company culture, and a lack of leadership on the issue (http://bit.ly/1B80GcE).

One way RICS is hoping to drive a culture change in the industry is through our Inclusive Employer Quality Mark. This was launched in June at our inaugural Diversity and Inclusion Conference.

The initiative is asking organisations to sign up to six main principles, covering leadership and vision, recruitment, staff development, staff retention,

staff engagement, and continuous improvement. The Mark aims to make diversity a key part of business strategy.

Just as RICS is leading by example with the Quality Mark, so must chief executives (both male and female) in real estate organisations.

It is only with this leadership that any barriers to diversity can be addressed. Chief executives are in a unique position to sell the gender diversity message as well as linking it to company performance.

If they are convinced by the research supporting the business case, and are truly motivated to create a diverse workforce, change can accelerate markedly.

Given the shift in workplace demographics, generational, religious, genetic and sexual orientation differences are attributes. They contribute to an organisation’s wide appeal within its community and throughout the global marketplace.

A diverse workforce must become a driver of business success, economic growth and investment returns. The key external pressures of reputation, investor attitudes, and skills shortages are relevant to all, making a coordinated approach across the industry vital.

Diversity is a strategy, not an issue.

It is a competitive advantage, and this can only be fully realised by breaking down age old barriers across the industry. b Amanda Clack is RICS President Elect aclack@rics.org

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 7

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

FIRE

1

Mick Johns and Chris Stephens set out the safety lessons learnt from the fatal Shirley Towers fire

Dealing with disaster

O

n 6 April 2010, a fire at flat 72 on the ninth floor of Shirley Towers, Southampton resulted in the death of two firefighters.

A police investigation was followed by an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive and although no legal charges were brought by either organisation, a letter issued under provisions of Rule 43 of the Coroner’s Rules following an inquest in 2012 drew attention to nine separate areas needing action, three concerned with the building.

The 16-storey residential block was built in 1967 for Southampton City Council using the REEMA construction process, which uses a reinforced concrete frame with room sized precast concrete bolted to the outside. The 150 flats, constructed to a complicated scissor block design, with individual residences covering three floors, housed between 350-400 people.

The flats are served by a single staircase and two lifts in two vertical shafts separated by a protected lobby, which contains the dry rising main and isolators for gas and electricity for each floor. The landlord instruction to occupiers was to evacuate if they had a fire or operation of the smoke detection system within their home.

Other occupiers are instructed to remain in their flats unless advised to leave by the fire and rescue service.

In practice, seeing the arrival of the fire and rescue service or smoke travelling up past their windows, many residents chose to self evacuate, irrespective of their location to the fire.

8 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

On the night of the fire, this caused congestion on the single staircase as firefighting teams ran their hoses and other equipment up to the fire, making the route very difficult to negotiate for more elderly residents or those carrying children.

Fire cause The fire was caused by curtains being ignited by an uplighter lamp. After initial attempts to extinguish the blaze, the young family occupying the flat evacuated. Critically, the firefighters were not able to identify or speak to them before crews were committed to search for and extinguish the fire.

On entering the flat, the heavily smoke-logged conditions prevented the teams from locating the fire in the lounge area and they proceeded upstairs past the bathroom to the bedrooms.

They then decided to open bedroom windows to ventilate the smoke to assist in the search.

The effect was that the fire rapidly intensified. Due to extreme heat, the firefighting teams were unable to make their way back down the stairs to their entrance point. One team managed to find the fire escape door exiting onto the 11th floor corridor. Sadly, the second team was unable to escape Adding to the problem, the heat melted wall-mounted conduits and allowed ‘fans’ of hot sticky cables to fall, covering

Firefighters were not able to easily identify emergency exits from specific flats

3

entry/exit doors at chest and head height along the entire corridor. Shirley Towers had been rewired between 1995 and 1996, and the replacement wiring was routed along the walls of the common areas and within the flats via surface mounted plastic trunking.

The installation was compliant with electrical installation regulations in force at that time, but both the men who lost their lives had become entangled in the cables and been unable to free themselves.

In the few moments that the 11th floor exit door (fitted with a self-closing device) remained open, the pressure from the extreme fire conditions allowed hot gases and smoke to fill the corridor from floor to ceiling.

At this point, the occupants of the 12 flats on that floor would not have been able to negotiate this area. Hampshire

Images © Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

2

1 T wo firefighters died in the fire at Shirley Towers

2 T he 11th floor corridor filled with hot smoke

3 T he apartments were configured in a scissor block design

Fire and Rescue Service Control operators provided advice to the residents, some of whom were suffering extremely challenging conditions, which fortunately improved following the closure of the door and a reduction in the pressure of gases in the corridor. The fire was subsequently brought under control and extinguished by the Fire and Rescue Service.

Lessons learned The coroner drew attention to the findings of a previous inquest following a fatal fire at Harrow Court in Hertfordshire when firefighters lost their lives after becoming entangled in fire alarm cabling.

He noted that cables in Shirley Towers, although in compliance with current regulations, were not secured with fire-resisting cable fasteners allowing conduit to release heated cables and

preventing escape. The coroner recommended that regulations be amended to ensure that all cables are supported by fire-resistant supports.

Secondly, firefighters were not able to easily identify emergency exits from specific flats. Stairways (the firefighters main work area) did not clearly identify floor levels, causing a degree of confusion throughout the incident.

The coroner recommended that there be an obligation to provide signage to indicate floor levels both in stairwells and lift lobbies in high-rise premises, to assist the emergency services, with signs indicating flat numbers and emergency exits placed at low level to increase visibility in smoky conditions.

Sprinklers In addition, the coroner stated that social housing providers should be encouraged

to consider retrofitting sprinklers in all existing high-rise buildings in excess of 30m, particularly those identified by fire and rescue services as having complex designs that make firefighting more hazardous and/or difficult.

Irrespective of legislative requirement, Southampton City Council has maintained close liaison with Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service and has worked to improve fire safety at all their high-rise residential stock, particularly the three scissor block designs.

Soon after the incident, signage was improved in the stairwells and lobbies to assist emergency service workers understand their exact location. Signage indicating flat numbers to both entrance doors and escape doors has also been improved, placed lower down to make them more visible in smoky conditions.

The council has actively investigated the possibilities to retrofit domestic sprinklers into their three scissor blocks.

Despite the financial constraints faced by all local authorities at this time, it has secured the necessary funding to fit sprinklers to Shirley Towers and is currently tendering for this. When the sprinklers are being fitted, the opportunity will be taken to rewire and fit fire-resisting cable fastenings throughout in accordance with the new British Standard BS7671. b Mick Johns and Chris Stephens are Group Managers at Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service mick.johns@hantsfire.gov.co.uk chris.stephens@hantsfire.gov.uk

Related competencies include Fire safety

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015  9

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

H E A LTH A N D S A F E TY

John Richards looks at the factors to take into account when assessing asbestos risk

Legacy of exposure

C

oncern about materials used in construction can at times go full circle, typified in the changing approach to asbestos. The uniqueness of the naturally occurring fibrous mineral stems from its microscopic fibrous structure and its resistance to both high levels of heat and chemical attack.

Documented use can be traced back to the Roman Empire with archaeological evidence of asbestos as a caulking material as early as 300BC. In the UK, the use of asbestos in the construction industry began in the late 1800s and peaked post war. From the 1930s to the 1970s asbestos was regarded as a material with unrivalled properties for insulation. Its role in the prevention of fire spread was endorsed in architectural reviews and by bodies such as the London County Council, and its successor the Greater London Council.

Today, asbestos-containing materials are present in myriad forms, in more than 3,000 products.

Exposure The early use of asbestos almost certainly saved lives but the benefit has been more than offset by the legacy issues it has created. The material was only prohibited in the UK in late 1999, meaning there is over a century of use. From a regulatory perspective, all buildings built prior to 2000 must therefore be regarded as potentially asbestos-containing and managed in accordance with a stringent list of requirements to ensure that any risk is effectively controlled. It is generally acknowledged that over 75% of the UK’s schools contain asbestos.

The dangers are reflected in the UK’s annual asbestos death toll. Asbestosis is a chronic disease associated with high levels of exposure, typically in the processing/manufacturing or handling industries. Deaths associated with asbestosis are slowly declining and are currently fewer than 500 per annum. But it is currently estimated that 2,000 deaths 1 0 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

occur annually due to asbestos-related lung cancers.

Over the past 20 years, mesothelioma has emerged as a main concern, affecting not only those in occupational contact but those who have been exposed to low levels of asbestos. The number of deaths has increased significantly from 158 in 1968 to 2,535 in 2012 and the figure is still rising (http://bit.ly/1F3QbTC).

The UK has the unenviable title of having the highest levels of mesothelioma in the world, losing more people to the disease each year than are killed in road accidents.

The combined death toll from asbestosis, asbestos lung-related cancers and mesothelioma currently exceeds 5,000 per annum, despite research suggesting the peak in fatalities should already have occurred.

Asbestos fibres are bio-persistent.

The properties that led to the material’s use also prevent it being broken down

by the body’s defence mechanisms for long periods of time. Emerging theories suggest that long-term exposure to very low levels of asbestos may present the same risk as short duration high-level exposure. This may best be exemplified by the increasing numbers of teachers contracting mesothelioma.

Fibre release In buildings constructed before 2000, some products contain high levels of fibres such as lagging and sprayed asbestos, while others have a lower content such as floor tiles and textured finishes.

In poorly maintained buildings, asbestos materials will degrade and hence may release fibres. Understanding this risk is complex. A degraded material with high fibre content such as sprayed asbestos presents a high risk, but its location is a major factor in the outcome.

In a plant room, exposure risk to general building users will be minimal, Images © Thames Laboratories

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

m The early use of asbestos almost certainly saved lives but this has now been more than offset by legacy issues

however if the location is a return air plenum the number of people affected could be considerable.

The challenge to those who manage or occupy properties is determining the risk, of which our understanding is far from complete.

In friable material such as sprayed asbestos or asbestos insulation and asbestos insulation board, even minor disturbance can result in the significant release of fibres. These materials would generally be regarded as high risk and their presence can have implications on the day-to-day management of properties.

I recently visited a small industrial unit where poor removal of a sprayed asbestos ceiling has resulted in considerable contamination, and a likely ÂŁ250,000 removal cost for the occupier. At the other end of the risk scale, floor tiles where the asbestos has been incorporated in the manufacturing

process present little danger during removal because the fibres are bonded within the tile matrix.

Removal The process of removal and the condition of a material can affect the potential risk. For example, asbestos cement sheets in good condition would generally be regarded as low risk. If the material can be removed whole this would not affect its friability because the fibres are bound within the matrix. If, however, the sheets are damaged during removal then the friability of the material and the level of control needed will increase. The same applies if the sheets are weathered and degraded.

This concept of friability has resulted in the development of three classifications.

Where work involves the highest risk, most friable materials, only contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive can be used, with all works

notified to the appropriate enforcing authority. For low-risk items that can be removed intact, the only requirement is for the use of appropriately trained and insured contractors.

The middle ground of materials where the friability is moderate and the levels of fibre release will be increased by the works are termed notifiable non-licensed works. The requirements for control sit between licensed and non-licensed work, but the contractor must notify these works.

The presence of most asbestos materials in a building does not mean that it will have a detrimental impact on the property. If maintained in a good condition, asbestos materials present negligible additional risk. The challenge is ensuring the materials are identified and correctly managed.

The presence of higher risk asbestos items within a building should be considered, because disturbance could impact on day-to-day operations and indeed the general operative costs.

Where properties containing high risk or large quantities of asbestos are being considered for redevelopment or demolition, it is important to ensure that adequate information has been obtained as early as possible.

The European Parliament has begun discussions on establishing an acceptable environmental level for asbestos exposure. The proposed threshold will apply to all buildings and is considerably lower than the level currently deemed acceptable. The implication is that such a limit may have a direct impact on properties where higher risk friable materials are present. b John Richards is Director at Thames Laboratories john@thameslabs.co.uk

Related competencies include Building pathology, Health and safety

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015  1 1

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

BUILDING PERFORMANCE

OPINION Part L is still a key tool in the drive to reduce carbon emissions, says Rob Warren

Closing the gap

I

n the business of housebuilding, regulations play a huge part in setting the rules of engagement for the construction industry and for the performance of the housing stock that appears as a result.

Over the years, Building Regulations evolve and the designers and contractors that build the UK’s much-needed new housing stock must ensure that they meet the requirements set out in such Approved Documents as Part L The Conservation of Fuel and Power.

So why is government intervention necessary? The answer can probably be deduced from its impact assessment to support changes to Part L 2013, aimed at reducing carbon emissions from the built environment to meet its Climate Change Act targets. This said: “Appropriately designed performance-based Building Regulations can help to achieve this”, and here is the crucial bit, “if the market would not make these changes of its own accord”.

It implies that ensuring that fuel and power is conserved through insulation and efficient heating methods is not something that comes naturally to a building designer. One could argue that it would depend on their motives, because there will definitely be some who have a more ‘green’ approach than others. However, as a general rule, in a commercially driven sector the business of building houses is just that and the rules represent the limit, not the starting point.

So the evolution of Building Regulations in the form of Part L should give a good indication of where and how the government of the day has focused its efforts to improve building performance.

1 2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

The built environment is responsible for 45% of the UK’s CO2 emissions and the emissions demands of Europe and the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 mean such an obvious blot on the landscape has to be tackled. Given that this would not happen by itself, it is regulations to the rescue and Part L has become the sharpest tool.

Changing rules Back in the days of Part L 2002, life was pretty simple. Just hit the U-values for wall, floor and roof elements in the document (indicating the heat loss rate – the lower the number the better) and you would comply. Simple.

The appearance of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in 2006 brought a change of approach. CO2 from buildings had to be measured to produce an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

This calculation, through the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is based on assumptions for occupancy and behaviour and indicated a whole house approach to design compliance.

The guidance had to consider all the factors that played a part in energy reduction, such as fabric U-values, as well as the efficiency of space and water heating plus the addition of renewable technologies. Flexibility of design was the order of the day, although limiting fabric U-values required a minimum performance level to be achieved in the walls, floor and roof.

By 2010, and with the SAP methodology established, it was easy to put a number to CO2 emissions reduction.

The target emission rate from a house built to 2006 specification could be reduced by a percentage figure and the newbuild houses of 2010 would therefore add 25% less CO2 than their equivalent

predecessors. The limiting fabric U-values remained and it became harder to comply by building to those values alone.

The expected 25% reduction in 2013 was scaled back to 6%, but for England came the additional target of the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard, based on the energy required to space heat and cool the house. This effectively provided a separate target for the fabric of the building and made it more difficult, if not nearly impossible, to use limiting fabric U-values only.

What next?

The original timeline for changes to Part L was devised to achieve zero carbon homes by 2016. The definition of zero carbon has been open to change at the whim of the government of the day.

Originally constituted by the Labour government in 2008, it was redefined by the coalition in 2010 and again in the Queen’s Speech of June 2014.

Then this July, the new Conservative government dealt two deadly blows to the concept of further reducing carbon emissions with the publication of its Fixing the foundations: creating a more prosperous nation report, with the following statement: “The government does not intend to proceed with the zero carbon Allowable Solutions carbon offsetting scheme, or the proposed 2016 increase in on-site energy efficiency standards” (http://bit.ly/1eM0SUd).

Allowable Solutions would have allowed any residual carbon to be accounted for to make the house overall zero carbon. With the scheme gone, there is now no requirement to construct zero carbon buildings – both domestic and non-domestic.

As there are now no plans to increase efficiency standards either, Part L 2016

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

If the government holds firm to the commitment that houses perform as designed, then perhaps even an unchanged Part L can drive down emissions

Table 1 Part L change

CO 2 reduction

Notes

2002

-

Elemental

2006

20% on 2002

Limiting fabric U-values included

2010

25% on 2006

Party wall heat loss discovered

2013

6% on 2010

Introduction of Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard

2016

No change

As Part L 2013 with no introduction of zero carbon houses

k Key Part L changes since 2002 will be redundant and Part L 2013 will continue to set the energy efficiency standards for the foreseeable future.

In the past, for those who wished to push beyond Building Regulations, the Code for Sustainable Homes offered a pioneering approach to CO2 emissions reduction. So surely this still offers a way to drive energy efficiency through to more of the newbuild housing stock? The answer is no. Following the government’s Housing Standards Review in March 2015, the code has also been killed off.

It seems that the performance of houses will be set at the Part L 2013 level with no planning levers in place to create an increase in energy efficiency performance. The new government agenda is all about growth. This is illustrated by changes to planning policy to enable more houses to be built and to make it easier to add extra storeys without the need for local planning approval.

If the standard stays the same, you could argue that the performance of houses will also be unchanged. However, there is one more issue that remains, for the moment at least, on the government’s radar – the ‘performance gap’.

True performance The current measure of performance, the EPC ratings, are familiar to anyone who buys or rents a house, and are a good

way of assessing energy efficiency and environmental impact of the house along with its expected fuel bills and ways to improve the current rating.

In Q1 2015, 78% new houses were A or B, 19% were C or D and 3% E, F or G. So you could be forgiven for thinking that if you buy a new house today you are getting a good EPC rating and all is well.

Not quite.

The government has concerns that the final ‘as built’ property may not perform as expected when it was designed.

Reports by the Zero Carbon Hub have flagged issues throughout the design, procurement, build and commissioning phases with expected CO2 emissions exceeding the actual figure of the building in use.

For the housebuilder, if the final house meets all the various requirements of the Building Regulations, they have complied on performance. For the occupier, performance is on a more fundamental level. Does the heating come on and is the water hot? Do the windows open?

Do I feel comfortable in the house in the height of summer and the depths of winter? I suspect very few ask: “Are the CO2 emissions as expected?”

So, we have three groups of people with potentially three different perceptions of the performance gap and different levels of awareness of the impact of Part L of the regulations.

At face value, the EPC ratings would indicate there is no problem with new houses hitting the top two bands 78% of the time. However, the work done so far on the performance gap suggests that houses are built to comply with a set of rules rather than to meet a performance standard.

It will be interesting to see how (or indeed if) this approach changes as more houses get built to a repeat Part L 2013 specification without the concern of more regulatory changes around the corner.

Will customers want more choice in the future and be able to specify, for example, higher thermal comfort levels above and beyond the regulatory standard with lower fuel bills to match?

Perhaps the only definition of ‘performance’ that matters is yet to come. The challenge set by government to housebuilders is that 90% of all new homes built by 2020 will have to demonstrate they perform as designed.

If the government holds firm to that commitment, then perhaps even an unchanged Part L can still drive down emissions and drive up performance through a better understanding and implementation of the whole construction process to deliver houses that truly perform as designed. b

More information >

The NHBC Foundation has published new outline guidance on Part L compliance for Wales www.nhbcfoundation.org

Rob Warren is Head of Technical at Celotex rwarren@celotex.co.uk

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 1 3

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

APC

On course to charter Charles Deed tracks his APC route to membership

fter securing a job as Trainee Building Control Surveyor at London Borough of Hillingdon, I was excited that I could now start working towards chartership with RICS and lose the ‘trainee’ prefix from my job title.

Hillingdon had not put anyone through the APC process for many years, because trainees had opted for membership with other organisations instead. The process had changed drastically since, so Hillingdon Building Control Manager Anthony Oloyede and I started researching what to do.

Firstly, a company has to have a Training Agreement in place to enable them to train prospective APC candidates. Although this may be a daunting document to write, RICS has templates to simplify the process. The training agreement sets out the company's commitment to train the candidate, clarifies certain issues such as reimbursement of fees, working time allocated to personal study and details of how the candidate will be trained in each competency.

Financial assistance Hillingdon agreed to provide financial assistance; reimbursing application fees, membership fees, and the cost of external training courses. I required a supervisor (who oversees day-to-day activities) and a counsellor (who has to be a member of RICS) to support me. This information was included with the application form and I received correspondence that I had started the APC process. I was given the earliest date of my final assessment as November 2016.

As of this year the process has changed slightly. The Training Agreement has been replaced by APC Candidate Training Plan. Although the document is similar, it is now not required to be submitted to RICS, and represents best practice for candidates completing structured training. A supervisor is no longer required – although one is recommended, particularly if the candidate is going through the graduate route – and only one counsellor is required to sign off on progress.

Still being slightly in the dark, we booked ourselves on a course with DeLever, during which Jon Lever, DeLever’s Managing Director and RICS APC Chairman of Assessors, talked us through the whole APC process from inception to the final assessment.

As a graduate with an RICS-accredited degree, I would be on Graduate Route 1, which involves two years structured training 1 4 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

followed by the final assessment. During the structured training period the candidate must work towards various levels of competencies to prove they are proficient.

Competencies The competencies are split between mandatory, which assess your personal, interpersonal and professional and business skills, and technical, relating to skills of your chosen pathway.

Some of the technical competencies are not part of the work carried out by our Building Control department, for example ‘inspection’, which relates to licensing. So I have arranged secondment with other departments within Hillingdon Council and London Fire Brigade to further my knowledge and enable me to gain these competencies.

Throughout the training period, I had regular meetings with my supervisor and counsellor to discuss progress and assess my working towards the competencies. I kept a diary, logging hours towards each competency and noting any jobs that may be beneficial for writing up, and aid discussions in the meetings. I also have to complete 96 hours CPD over the training period.

The changes in January 2015 also introduced new template for candidates to fill in through the structured training period.

This changes the way CPD is logged, and now mirrors that of RICS members with a simple formal/informal split and other minor changes including word counts of the competencies. The critical analysis has changed its title to a case study, but is still a 3,000 word submission and final assessment; an hour-long interview appears to remain unchanged.

To start preparation for the final assessment, I took part in a mock interview which an former employee of Hillingdon arranged with Oloyede, before their final assessment.

We questioned him on his case study and competencies.

This not only benefited the candidate, but conducting research for questions helped me to prepare for mine, which is fast approaching. b Charles Deed is a Trainee Building Control Surveyor at London Borough of Hillingdon cdeed@hillingdon.gov.co.uk

isurv.com helps ensure candidates develop a strong foundation of knowledge to increase their chance of passing the final assessment

A PC

View from the chair With nearly 10 years under his belt as an assessor, APC chairman Gary Blackman describes a typical interview day

A

round six weeks before the APC assessments take place; the panel of two assessors and the chairman are sent details of all of the candidates. Assuming there are no conflicts of interest, a couple of weeks later the panel members are given the candidates’ submissions, which they must read thoroughly (i.e. more than once).

Depending on the assessors’ areas of expertise, the chairman will split the various competencies between them to allow them to compile questions.

All of the assessments I have been involved with are held in hotels. It can be a bit of a surreal experience, but it is a system that works very well. It is not uncommon for panel members to bump into the day’s candidates in the waiting areas and while we all take great care not to react at all, it is actually quite difficult given we know exactly who they are from their submission photograph.

Each panel interviews four candidates in a typical assessment day and it is the chairman’s responsibility to ensure that they are made as welcome and comfortable as possible. After introducing the panel, the chairman gives a brief outline of the interview Images © iStock

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

Referral report If a candidate is referred, the chairman must compile a report to give general feedback and guidance, detailing the areas in which they did not meet the required level of competence so that they can seek to learn from any mistakes and address any areas of weakness before resitting. With six core and three optional competencies to cover in addition to the mandatory competencies, there is a great deal to cover (hence the note taking during the assessment), so compiling a referral report can take quite some time.

With so much resting on it, the APC is perhaps the most daunting experience of any candidate’s professional life to date. But they should take comfort from the fact that everyone in the assessment room knows exactly what they are going through.

Fair and open process

The process is a very fair and open one structure and ensures that the candidate is aware that the members will be taking notes. Throughout, it is the chairman’s responsibility to ensure that the various sections of the interview are kept within time.

Following the candidate’s critical analysis presentation and once questioning has come to an end, the chairman will round off the assessment with questions about RICS code of conduct and professional ethics. The candidate is then given the final word on anything else they would like to add or clarify.

Each hour-long assessment is followed by a half hour break, during which the panel discusses the candidate’s performance. Very often the two assessors reach a consensus over success or referral, but, if not, the chairman has the ‘casting vote’ having listened to both assessors, as regards their particular areas of specialism, to reach a balanced and fair decision.

It is worth making the point that the APC process is a very fair and open one. There is categorically no ‘quota’ system. If a candidate is judged competent to practise as a chartered surveyor they will be awarded the MRICS designation. The assessors are not trying to catch them out – there are no trick questions. Candidates will be judged on their submission and their performance.

Remember too that none of us knows everything. Even the most seasoned professional has to admit when something is outside their sphere of knowledge or experience. In the APC, if you don’t know something please don’t pretend that you do – you will simply dig yourself into a hole.

The experience of being an APC panel member is extremely rewarding and, aside from being a great networking opportunity, the APC candidates I supervise at work greatly benefit from my insight. Crucially, it also keeps me on my toes because I have to ensure that I am as up to date as the candidates I interview, which only goes to show that none of us should ever stop learning. b

Gary Blackman is an Associate at Malcolm Hollis LLP gary.blackman@malcomhollis.com

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 1 5

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

CONDENSATION

Building Regulations have over the years tried to respond to the problem of condensation, as Anthony Ley explains

Mould matters

A

s a chartered building surveyor, I have frequently been called to investigate rising damp and leaking roofs only to discover that the problem is condensation. The more pronounced problems have been in older properties, often improved as a DIY project Information leaflets are available but are rarely seen on site. I have come across soffit ventilation being blocked up by property owners because the roof space was deemed too draughty, especially where the space was used for domestic storage.

The problem of condensation in roof spaces occurred after the UK government introduced thermal insulation standards in the 1953 model Building Byelaws, which were eventually adopted by all councils.

With the ever increasing number of household appliances generating moisture vapour, such as washing machines, dish washers, dryers, cookers, plus bathrooms and shower/wet rooms, it is not surprising that condensation problems are on the increase. Condensation is known to be the cause of mould growth on wall surfaces. These moulds include cladospoium, penicllium, aspergillus and alternaria and sometimes the toxic stachybotrys chartarum. These bacteria can cause respiratory problems such as nasal stuffiness, eye and skin irritation, wheezing, bronchitis and asthma.

Building Regulations The Building Regulations have tried to tackle this problem, first by requiring good thermal insulation and trying to limit the U-value of existing buildings, for example on walls to not more than 0.7. Surface condensation is a matter of temperature and relative humidity, but the Regulations are looking for good thermal response from relatively lightweight construction rather than thermal mass from earth built structures such as cob and or mass stone walls.

The buildings with thermal mass, once heated, will give off their heat during night times when a property is not heated and in doing so invariably the surface temperature does not fall below dew point and condensation does not occur.

1 6   SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

However, buildings with good thermal response will gain surface temperature very quickly but also lose it at the same speed. With the twice-daily cyclical heating of modern houses, the wall and other surfaces typically attract condensation on four occasions of heating and cooling, which if repeated over a period of time leads to mould growth.

Houses built after the First World War still had fireplaces in the bedrooms, but during the 1920s central heating was becoming more common. As a result, condensation occurred in bedrooms and the building byelaws in 1930s required air bricks to be installed to provide background ventilation. However, these were often wall papered over or rendered externally so the benefits were reduced and the byelaw did not appear in the 1953 model.

With the Building Regulations taking on the remit of energy conservation, improved roof insulation soon presented problems in the roof void. Amendments in 1976 and 1981 required roof spaces to be ventilated.

The 2006 regulations made a conscious effort to harmonise the thermal and ventilation requirements to combat interstitial condensation, which was then being recognised as a specific problem.

The current Approved Document C2 is aimed at adequately protecting the building and building users from harmful effects caused by ground moisture, precipitation, interstitial and surface condensation and spillage of water from or associated with sanitary fittings or fixed appliances.

Vapour control layers The solutions put forward in the Approved Document are based on ventilating out moist air wherever possible and restricting the entry of moisture vapour. The acceptable standards include the use of vapour control layers [VCLs] in certain situations, but in practice I find that this is not well heeded.

For example, in beam and block floors, the oversite is left exposed and is frequently lower than the adjoining ground level, especially in Devon, often sloping so the water is likely to enter and in some cases ‘pond‘. BBA certificates indicate ventilation of the subfloor area as the solution, as do many manufacturers,

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

It was not until 1953 that thermal insulation standards were introduced to combat the health issues associated with severe condensation and reduced air quality

which is understandable because they want to claim that their product offers the cheapest solution.

However, the Approved Document does advocate the use of damp proof membranes, as do some manufacturers.

Furthermore, it stresses that the concrete cover to the reinforcement in floor beams should be at least 40mm. Where the cover is less than 40mm, addition protection is needed to prevent damage from condensation.

When I have pointed this out to small developers, a layer of polythene placed oversite weighted down by sand has been sufficient to restrict the entry of moisture from the ground.

Larger developers are more cost conscious.

The use of VCLs is more common with timber framed construction but the problem here is the service engineers, who rarely seal the penetrations they make. The Approved Document makes this point. The same applies to roofs.

Images © Shutterstock

I often suggest the use of VCLs, because I find from experience that property owners often restrict the performance of roof space ventilators, but there is a reluctance to use a polyhene sheet or foil-backed plasterboard or moisture-resistant plaster board on a cost basis. Usually a polythene VCL is objected to on the basis that the roof is ventilated or it is a fiddly job.

The construction of a ‘warm’ roof has to have a VCL on the warmer side otherwise condensation will occur somewhere between the inner and outer surfaces. Wet insulation loses its thermal values, which can be progressive leading to reduced thermal values.

Ventilation systems There are other requirements in the Regulations that can help to reduce condensation. Regulation 39 requires that within five days of completing the relevant work the owners be given adequate information on the operation of the ventilation system and Regulation 42 requires that the mechanical ventilation systems are tested to ensure that the extract rates have been achieved.

Sometimes this is difficult to attain. Often Regulation 39 information is a written statement from the installer, although on many occasions occupiers have shown me copies of the information that the manufacturer has passed on to them.

Many installers of mechanical ventilation systems do not have an anemometer even though they can be purchased for less than £100. Furthermore, the testing has to be undertaken at the terminal so account can be taken of any friction loss in the ductwork. Quite often at completion of the building the terminals are not accessible due to removal of scaffolding or other support.

While the UK has had building controls in the way of building byelaws and regulation since 1866, it was not until 1953 that thermal insulation standards were introduced to combat the health issues associated with severe condensation and reduced air quality. The ever increasing demands of Part L have raised the problems of condensation ever higher – an issue that Part F on ventilation has been trying to address. However, it appears that the living patterns of the occupants are the main cause and without changes in behaviour the problem will continue.

Studies carried out regarding occupancies and condensation/ health problems show that the majority of people affected are in the lower income group, most probably in energy poverty, where the expense of loss of heat through ventilation is best avoided.

So Building Regulations are not the solution, but if used appropriately they can provide a building which is capable of minimising the problem. b Anthony Ley is a Senior Surveyor at Complete Building Control seven-iron@talktalk.net

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 1 7

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

OPINION

Paul Wilkins responds to issues on the design role of the building control body raised by Andrew Foolkes

A modern service Documents, or alternative methods demonstrating compliance with the functional regulations.

Competence

Building control as a service and profession has evolved into a highly valued part of the compliance and construction process. This was clearly demonstrated in the Building Control Alliance Value of building control report and Compliance Actions research published in 2012.

The introduction of the private sector has surely played a part in this. This initiative found practitioners and their professional bodies ready to change and willing to adopt the spirit of reports, by Egan, Latham and Bourne, by contributing to the removal of conflict and barriers from the design and construction processes.

We now have a profession and service that is accessible throughout the preapplication, design and construction phases. While the building inspector has always been proactive in many respects, perhaps advising on the depth of domestic foundations or simple domestic structural alterations, the days of the poacher/gamekeeper approach have, thankfully, long gone.

The industry now benefits from advice on options for achieving compliance whether using code compliant solutions provided by interpretation of the Approved

Can building control professionals and building control bodies also demonstrate the necessary competence to advise assessment of compliance of potentially complex design solutions?

Building control professionals in the public and private sectors have to demonstrate high levels of competence across a wide range of construction-related subjects, both academically and practically to achieve professional status with RICS, CABE or the Chartered Institute of Building. They then demonstrate ongoing competence via robust CPD requirements.

Approved inspectors are one of the most highly regulated disciplines in the construction industry with a robust code of practice and an ongoing audited requirement to demonstrate competence and sound business practice.

Our colleagues in the public sector are keen to adopt similar mechanisms to guide their working practices.

Both sectors provide annual key performance indicator returns to the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group including elements demonstrating organisational competence.

Another issue raised is independence and the balance between proactive advice and design.

To demonstrate maximum value to government and

1 8 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

society, it is essential that building control maintains the underlying principle of a third party independent auditing service.

At the building control body level, in the private sector, independence is dealt with via our regulatory framework where approved inspectors are required to demonstrate adequate independence during the approval and ongoing reapproval process.

The balance between proactive advice and design must be a matter for individual building control practitioners and their professional bodies based on competence and ethics. The three professional bodies provide support and training, codes of conduct and ethics policies to guide individuals to use their judgment.

CDM Regulations The reference made by Andrew Foolkes to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 is a strange one. The regulations define designers only in respect of those regulations, not for any other purpose. Additionally, the clause referred to is intended to protect statutory bodies from becoming ‘designers’ in this respect.

Foolkes is correct that the Building Regulations are functional and therefore define what the law requires.

In giving proactive advice, building control professionals do not go beyond meeting these requirements. In this context, the comment that pointing out relevant clauses within Approved Document B could be construed as design is wrong.

The world where there was conflict and mutual pressures between building control bodies and designers/ contractors in respect of liability and “as long as building control sign it off it will be OK” is one that thankfully we now rarely see.

To turn briefly to fire engineering, which is a discipline Foolkes has moved into and of which I used to be part. It has become highly valued, providing essential support to innovative and cost-effective design.

However, the quality of submissions received by building control bodies varies greatly. Currently, anyone can call themselves a fire engineer. Perhaps the fire engineering community could take the lead from building control in devising methods of identifying individual and organisational competence.

Finally, the benefit to the construction industry, government and wider society of a modern proactive building control service facilitates the effective delivery of compliant, safe, sustainable and accessible buildings. b

More information >

Andrew Foolkes’ article Crossing boundaries appeared in Building Control Journal April/May, p13

Paul Wilkins is Chair of the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors and Chief Executive of the Butler & Young Group paul.wilkins@byl.co.uk

LEG A L

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

What happens when an owner refuses to comply with notices to improve their premises? Steve Polfreman takes up the story

Taking action

A

large, prominently located and imposing 1980s seven-storey former office building was causing major problems for Stevenage Borough Council. Unoccupied for seven years and plagued with significant vandalism and graffiti, it had even featured in a ‘fly on the wall’ police television programme about thieves pillaging for copper pipes and cable.

Local business owners and residents were dismayed by the condition of the premises and the poor impression it gave of the town from the adjacent East Coast Main Line railway. The council, police and fire services were also concerned about the safety of any individuals accessing the premises, with all fire precautions totally inadequate due to vandalism and the absence of electrical power.

In 2013, after children had been frequently seen playing in the building, the borough council’s Chief Executive, in his role as chair of the local community safety partnership, decided to take action. Attempts to arrange meetings with the owners and the Development Management team to move the situation forward proved fruitless because those with specific responsibility proved very hard to identify or contact.

Serving notices A number of possible courses of action were considered and ruled out including use of section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Acts, emergency powers under section 78 of the Building Act and also magistrates’ court route under section 77.

In December 2013, a group of travellers occupied the site for several weeks before eventually being moved on by the police and council. At this point the decision was made to invoke the little-used section 79 of the Building Act in respect of ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites. This applied pressure to the owners to improve the appearance of the building Image © Steve Polfreman

k The building owners were fined on five counts and the property is now being sold and trigger a number of remedies. These included compliance by the owners; works in default and counter-charging; criminal prosecution in the magistrates’ court and the potential for an ongoing daily fine in the event of continuing non-compliance.

After confirming the ownership details at the Land Registry, five separate notices were served in February 2014 requiring specified work to be completed within 28 days. This included: bb securing the perimeter of the site (the building stands in extensive grounds with 238 car parking spaces) bb securing the perimeter of the building at all points of potential access bb removal of all items hanging through broken windows that would not be expected in an occupied building, such as window blinds and fire hoses bb replacement of all broken glass in windows and doors with clear Perspex or similar material that would replicate glass when viewed from outside the site bb sweeping the site to remove all broken glass.

None of the work was undertaken within the 28 days and, given the increasing concern for people accessing the building, the council commissioned its

contractor to secure the building against unauthorised access immediately after the notice expiry, with the costs of the work plus reasonable supervision time added as a legal charge on the property at the Land Registry.

Then, more travellers arrived and after the two weeks of occupation left behind 60 tonnes of domestic refuse and rubble. Petty arsonists were attracted to the site, starting several fires, while the council’s Environmental Health team was also involved, serving notices on the management company relating to infestations.

In June 2014, the council began formal proceedings in Stevenage magistrates’ court. The owners were convicted on all five counts and fined the maximum allowable of £2,500 on each charge (£12,500 in total) plus £1,000 towards the council costs.

The property is now being sold with the new owners looking to convert the premises to flats under the ‘prior notification’ planning process. b Steve Polfreman is Building Control Manager at Stevenage Borough Council steve.polfreman@stevenage.gov.uk

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015 1 9

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

PART P

Although electrical contracting responsibilities under Part P are now well understood, compliance problems remain in certain areas, as Phil Hammond explains

Under review

I

t is fair to say that Part P on electrical safety has produced a lot of discussions over the 10 years it has been in force. Because it is not a closed system, under the Building Regulations work does not have to be done by a registered member of an electrical competent person scheme.

With ubiquitous access to electrical products direct available from distributors or retail, plus the fact that electrical work in the home is virtually invisible, there have always been suspicions about the level of compliance. In response, earlier this year LABC published the results of new original research commissioned to evaluate how Part P has fared.

The research was carried out by Lychgate, an acknowledged specialist in the building industry. The study comprised three elements, carried out in December 2014 and January 2015.

First, an online homeowner survey was completed by TNS. The feedback from 778 respondents established their understanding and awareness of their responsibilities. Results were weighted to be representative of the population demographics. Secondly, a self-fill survey of building control bodies drew 198 replies documenting their policies, methods and the extent of interventions. A further 82 in-depth interviews were then conducted with building control bodies to collect comments on experiences, issues, casework and outcomes when dealing with Part P.

Enforcement actions One of the main findings was that enforcement actions have reduced in mainstream work carried out by contracting firms and trades people registered with a competent person scheme. Results show that after 10 years, the system is understood and has now ‘settled down’ in the standard business-to-business work between building control surveyors and registered electricians.

Fewer issues (processes and/or quality of work) are being reported, with 90% of building control bodies saying that Part P complaints are remaining constant or decreasing. In addition, 73% of building control bodies say that they are seeing similar or fewer referrals compared to other competent persons schemes.

2 0 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

In the vast majority of cases it only requires simple advice to achieve compliance Little intervention From the self-fill survey and interviews with building control managers, it is clear that the majority of work progresses with little or no intervention by building control. If serious issues do occur, in the overwhelming majority of cases, escalating the pressure on the contracting party to rectify non-compliant work is enough to resolve the problem.

In the vast majority of cases it only requires simple advice to achieve compliance. Even when local authorities have to intervene more formally after the failure of initial intervention, the work is put right as pressure is increased. Only a tiny proportion ends up in court.

Lychgate’s research looked in detail at how building control bodies work with contractors and trades people undertaking typical work in peoples’ homes on extensions, loft conversions and similar improvements. The majority of building control bodies now report that that the number of problems is reducing to a level found with similar schemes in other trade areas.

Some commentators were lobbying for more prosecutions, including competent persons schemes keen to demonstrate their Images © iStock

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

worth. However, the survey findings would seem to negate the need for aggressive enforcement campaigns in electrical contracting, being disproportionate to the level of poor compliance actually occurring.

Feedback from local authorities is that the balance between public protection, public interest (the cost and effectiveness of enforcement) and compliance is now being achieved in line with other parts of the Building Regulations.

DIY work Where the research revealed bigger causes for concern was with a class of work that is more difficult for building control bodies to see. Under Part P, DIY work and work carried out by non-registered traders should be checked and certified by a competent person. It is clear that this is not widely understood by homeowners and that DIY work produces a lot of problems.

There is also a lack of awareness that electrical trades competent persons schemes exist.

Under the law, the property owner is ultimately responsible for ensuring electrical work complies with regulations (indeed all the Building Regulations). Where people do their own work or use an unregistered person, but still need to make a Building Regulations Application or have a member of a scheme check it and issue the covering document.

Intervening and using enforcement powers on DIY work is difficult, because if it is not reported it can remain invisible.

Anyone can buy the relevant electrical product from retailers and there is rarely any reference to the Building Regulations or Part P at the point of sale. This means local authorities, as the enforcing body, only become aware of problems if someone else

reports it; or it turns up some time later when the property is being sold. If this happens then compliance is achieved by using Regularisation action.

The research shows just how confused homeowners are.

For example, 73% are unaware that fitting an electric shower is covered by the Building Regulations, and 55% that these also apply to fitting a new electric circuit. In contrast, the majority of home owners are aware that work involving connections to the gas supply is regulated and only 2% would attempt this type of work.

Homeowner awareness of competent persons schemes also shows a marked difference between the gas and electrical sectors; while 61% recognised the Gas Safe scheme, only 5% recognised NAPIT and 19% NICEIC. The problem with electrical work in homes is that very little has been done to explain the Building Regulations, the role of competent persons and the scheme operators to the public.

So LABC welcomes and supports the new electrical competent persons register and the work of Electrical Safety First. A single register and an umbrella organisation for promoting public awareness are both good news and an obvious improvement and LABC intends to use its resources and network to drive home owners towards these information sources.

Following a meeting of the Electrical Safety Round Table, LABC has committed to run information campaigns through its network to direct the public to these information sources and the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors will ask its members operating in the domestic market to do the same. It is expected that other bodies representing retailers, manufacturers, scheme operators and scheme members will all follow this example. b

More information >

Electrical safety first http://bit.ly/1HdF68R Electrical competent persons register http://bit.ly/1HfAZYc Phil Hammond is Managing Director at LABC phil.hammond@labc.uk.com

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015  2 1

RICS B UI L D I N G CO N T ROL J OU RNAL

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Level best Amy Cory describes how the Passivhaus standard will help to meet energy efficiency goals at the University of Leicester k An artist’s impressions of the Centre for Medicine

W

hen it opens during the next academic year, the University of Leicester Centre for Medicine will be the largest Passivhaus building in the UK. From the outset, the university was keen to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability. It worked with architects and designers to develop an environmentally friendly building to provide an inspirational learning environment for future doctors and healthcare professionals. The six-storey, 12,863m2 facility will also feature two green roofs and a green wall.

Widely described as the most stringent energy performance standard in the world, the first Passivhaus buildings were constructed in Darmstadt, Germany in 1990 and represented a new approach to integrated architectural design, incorporating environmental considerations into the fabric of a building. Now, more than 30,000 Passivhaus structures have been built around the world.

The core focus of the Passivhaus standard is to dramatically reduce the

The core focus of the Passivhaus standard is to dramatically reduce the requirement for space heating and cooling 2 2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

requirement for space heating and cooling, while also creating excellent indoor air quality and comfort levels.

A ground air heat exchange system to control the centre will be instrumental in achieving this at the university.

Thermal performance “Approved Design – the building control approved inspectors for the project – have been checking that we comply with Part L2A regarding the thermal performance of the building, but the Passivhaus approach means that we are going way beyond building regulations requirements.”

Underground pipes The system will work by sucking air from outside the building through 1.6km of underground pipes, heating (or cooling) it to 160C. Whether the external temperature is -50C or +300C, this system will provide a constant temperature at a low cost in terms of carbon emissions and energy, reducing the university’s annual energy bill by up to six times.

“The university has made an ambitious commitment to reducing its carbon footprint and constructing the Centre for Medicine to Passivhaus standards reinforces this,” says Project Manager Dave Vernon, from the university’s Estates and Facilities Management Division.

“This demonstrates the university’s appetite for exploring new technologies.

Massively reduced energy costs will be the reward for such a commitment.”

Other features set to lower the building’s energy consumption include ‘intelligent’ lifts permitting access only to floors authorised to cardholders, eliminating unnecessary journeys; external blinds that will descend automatically when certain heat levels are reached, avoiding the need for mechanical cooling; and low-energy LED lights throughout.

Three towers design Designed by Associated Architects, the £42m Centre for Medicine features large lecture theatres on the ground

Jonathan Chadwick, Associated Architects

and first floors. Above this, three separate towers rise to three, five and six floors to meet the demands of Passivhaus and to accommodate, laboratories and offices.

“We chose the design because of the need for natural light and glazed areas that would help to heat the building,” explains Jon Chadwick of Associated Architects. “Having three towers gives the building a larger surface area.”

The university is investing £32m into the project and is seeking to raise an additional £10m through a fundraising campaign to complete the build. The impressive new building will allow an overhaul of the curriculum the university is able to offer, with major benefits to the education and experience of students. b

More information >

www.le.ac.uk/savinglives Amy Cory is Multimedia News Officer at University of Leicesteron ac555@leicester.ac.uk

Image © Associated Architects

RICS Building Control Conference 22 September 2015 Birmingham RICS Building Control Conference is a one day conference providing in-depth understanding of the essential issues you need to know.

The session content includes Government’s building regulations, the Housing Standards Review, use of cloud technology, legal risk and negligence, inclusive space use and access, planning permission updates, new apprenticeship routes and the necessary technical considerations to overcome fire risk.

Join like-minded professionals, practitioners and expert leaders to discuss these and others issues as outlined in the programme for a full day of networking, learning, sharing and Q&A. This programme also contains specific content tailored to APC candidates in the form of a special afternoon break-out session for those wanting to gain tips to pass their examination.

Book your place today:

rics.org/bcconference

NHBC ACCEPTED

MARKET LEADING R VALUES

AIRTIGHTNESS VAPOUR BARRIER

DUAL TESTED HYBRIS

ROOFS, LOFTS & WALLS

MARKED LIGHTWEIGHT

Less than 10kg/roll

ONLINE SIMULATOR

EASY TO INSTALL HCONTROL HYBRID

BOOST’R HYBRID BOOST’R HYBRID + HYBRIS 75mm + HCONTROL HYBRID U Value = 0.15 W/m2K

THICKNESS

Boost’R Hybrid + Hybris + HControl Hybrid

= 1 complete solution the Hybrid formula

To find out more visit www.insulation-actis.com or call 01249 462888 HYBRID is a range of innovative CE marked products from ACTIS that are fully tested and certified to European Harmonized standards.